Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

New Member

The following Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law:
Anum Qaisar-Javed, for Airdrie and Shotts.

Lindsay Hoyle: I will suspend the House briefly to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Sitting suspended.

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: I have a short statement to make about the number of Members permitted in the Chamber. At its meeting this morning, the House of Commons Commission decided that, in accordance with Public Health England advice, it is now possible to safely increase the number of Members able to participate physically in the proceedings of the House. These changes mean that a total of 64 Members are now able to speak in the Chamber—almost double the original number. The changes include seven marked seats in the Under Galleries beyond the Bar of the House that have had new microphones installed to enable this.
I remind Members to sit only in the marked seats and to contribute only from those seats, as I do not want to disappoint them if they are not taken. I also remind Members that they must wear a mask when in the Chamber, other than when speaking. That is one of the steps that means we are able to allow more Members into the Chamber.
I am grateful, as I am sure all Members of the House are, for the quick work by the House service that has made these changes possible in response to the improving public health situation. I understand that many Members will be keen to attend the House in person to participate in debate. Although capacity in the Chamber has increased, it is still limited, and I must remind colleagues that I will suspend proceedings if I consider that the Chamber is becoming overcrowded. Nevertheless, I believe that every additional Member in this Chamber brings us a step closer to returning to normality, which I and all other Members wish to see.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Work and Pensions

The Secretary of State was asked—

PIP Application Process

Matt Vickers: What plans she has to review the application process for personal independence payment awards.

Justin Tomlinson: We are currently reviewing the application process for all personal independence payment claimants. Building on our covid response PIP 2 online service, whereby claimants can receive and submit their PIP 2 online, we are in the early stages of developing a new end-to-end application process and plan to test it later this year.

Matt Vickers: As we return to normality, what steps are being taken to ensure that PIP claimants are assessed promptly, so that those in need of support can access it as quickly as possible?

Justin Tomlinson: I am conscious that my hon. Friend has raised some specific cases directly with me. As we return to normality, we have received more claims than normal. We are working hard to get through those as quickly as possible, with average clearance times slightly up from 16 to 19 weeks. As face-to-face assessments start to return, those unable to be assessed through paper-based reviews, telephone or video assessments will be prioritised.

Support for Tenants with Rent Arrears

Nigel Mills: What steps her Department is taking to ensure that the welfare system helps support tenants with rent arrears to sustain their tenancies.

Will Quince: At the start of the pandemic, we invested almost £1 billion in local housing allowance rates, and we have made £140 million available in discretionary housing payment funding for local authorities in England and Wales, to support those struggling with housing costs. We continue to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support people to sustain their tenancies.

Nigel Mills: I thank the Minister for that answer. Would he accept, however, that there are many tenants who, through no fault of their own, will be in significant rent arrears and therefore facing eviction in the next few months, and will he therefore work on a cross-Government basis to find a solution that means those arrears can be cleared over a sensible period and those tenancies secured?

Will Quince: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We continue to work very closely with the MHCLG to find long-term solutions to housing challenges. Work coaches are trained to identify people with potential housing issues and to provide tailored support, including referrals to homelessness services or debt advice. Discretionary  housing payments are available, and the Government will make available a £310 million homelessness prevention grant for local authorities. However, I would of course be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what further measures we may be able to take.

Karen Buck: With the end of the eviction ban imminent, more than half of claimants needing help with housing costs face a shortfall between the help available and their actual rent—£100 a month in the case of universal credit claimants. The Government always say that discretionary housing payments are the answer to these shortfalls, so can the Minister explain to us why discretionary housing payments have suffered a real-terms cut and will be lower this year than they were before the pandemic?

Will Quince: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We take this issue incredibly seriously. That is why we pumped an additional nearly £1 billion into the local housing allowance and have frozen it in cash terms for a further year, and why we have the two-week run-on of housing benefit, direct payments to landlords available, £140 million in DHPs, the homelessness prevention grant, work coach support and, of course, Money and Pensions Service support. We stand ready to support any tenant who needs that support to sustain their tenancy and prevent homelessness.

Covid-19: Support with Essential Living Costs

Michael Fabricant: What steps her Department is taking to support people with essential living costs during the covid-19 outbreak.

Will Quince: The Government are delivering an unprecedented package of support, injecting billions into the welfare system. This includes a £20 uplift to universal credit and a one-off payment of £500 to working tax credit recipients, as well as rolling out our covid local support grant scheme, worth over £260 million to local authorities.

Michael Fabricant: As a good Conservative, I believe in devolution, and I think local government is far better placed than national Government to provide emergency support. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with me, and if not, why not?

Will Quince: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I do agree with him that the Government do not always know best. Actually, very often local authorities are best placed to decide how to allocate local funding to meet local need. That is why we moved quickly to implement innovative schemes during the pandemic, including the covid winter grant scheme and the local welfare assistance scheme. I have to say that, in his own constituency, Staffordshire County Council has spent the £3 million it was awarded on some really innovative projects, including oil heaters, warmth packs and, of course, food to support vulnerable families during the school holidays, meeting our objective of ensuring that vulnerable families would stay warm and well fed over the winter.

Stephen Timms: Hard-working, law-abiding families without indefinite leave to remain have not had as much support as others during the covid-19 outbreak because of the effect of the no recourse to public funds condition. Some of those families have been able to benefit from the job retention scheme, so how will they be supported after that scheme closes in September?

Will Quince: The right hon. Member knows that we are restricted, as per legislation, in what we can do in relation to the benefits system and those with no recourse to public funds. I know this is an issue that he cares very passionately about and has raised numerous times. I would certainly be very happy to raise this issue with the Immigration Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—and if we have a meeting, I will certainly invite the right hon. Member along.

Universal Credit Uplift

Hannah Bardell: What recent assessment she has made of the potential effect of removing the £20 uplift to universal credit on recipients of that benefit.

Allan Dorans: What recent assessment she has made of the potential effect of removing the £20 uplift to universal credit on recipients of that benefit.

Will Quince: Since the start of the pandemic, the Government’s priority has been to protect lives and people’s livelihoods. In March, the Government announced that we were extending the temporary £20-a-week increase in universal credit for a further six months. It is right that the Government should now shift our focus to supporting people back into work, and we have a comprehensive plan for jobs to help us to achieve this.

Hannah Bardell: This Tory Government chose to cut the lifeline of the £20 universal credit uplift in October, at the worst possible time, clashing with the withdrawal of the furlough scheme which the Office for Budget Responsibility warned will lead to UK unemployment levels peaking, hitting young people particularly hard. Will the Minister apologise to those whom his Government have pushed into further poverty and ask the Chancellor to do the decent thing and keep £20 uplift and extend it to legacy benefits?

Will Quince: The Government have always been clear that the £20 increase was a temporary measure to support households affected by the economic shock of covid-19. I am pleased to say that there have been significant positive developments in the public health situation since the increase was first announced, including the hugely successful vaccine roll-out. I have to repeat that it is therefore right that the Government should now shift focus to supporting people back into work and to progress in work, and we have a comprehensive plan via our £30 billion plan for jobs that will help us achieve this.

Allan Dorans: The Trussell Trust reports that hunger in the United Kingdom is not about access to food, but about low incomes from the social security safety net, revealing that 95% of people referred to food banks in early 2020 were living in destitution, with just £248 a month on average to survive on after housing costs. Does the Minister recognise that removing the £20 uplift to universal credit later this year will only push more families into hardship and deprivation across the United Kingdom?

Will Quince: No one in this House wants to see anyone in this country reliant on a food bank, and the Secretary of State and I are working across Government to identify and tackle the root causes of food insecurity and poverty. In the meantime, we continue to spend over £100 billion a year on benefits for working-age people, and during the pandemic we have pumped an additional £7.4 billion into our welfare system to support those facing the most financial disruption. But I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is right that we now shift our focus to supporting people back into work, because all evidence suggests that work is the best route out of poverty, and we have a comprehensive plan to do this via our £30 billion plan for jobs.

Jonathan Reynolds: Since 2010 poverty has risen significantly in all parts of the UK, so much so that, despite having a job, one in eight workers are living in poverty under this Conservative Government. Given that the Government are adamant that they will make this cut to universal credit, which will affect people in work, should we understand that despite the Prime Minister’s levelling-up agenda, in-work poverty will continue to rise?

Will Quince: We take this issue incredibly seriously, which is why we have the In-Work Progression Commission, which is due to report back soon, and why we spend over £100 billion a year supporting people of working age through the benefit system and put an £7.4 billion into the welfare system over the course of the pandemic to support those facing the most financial disruption. But I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he knows that the best route out of poverty is work. All the evidence suggests that that is the case; that is why all the efforts of this Government will be about, yes, ensuring that we have a strong, robust welfare safety net but also that the focus is on jobs, jobs, jobs—and through our £30 billion plan for jobs we will achieve that.

Jonathan Reynolds: I say to the Minister that work is the best route out of poverty but it has not been working for the last 11 years, and the evidence is there for all to see.
Many disabled people are worse off on universal credit than under the old legacy systems. Ministers know this because they were forced to introduce transitional protections and, when speaking in this Chamber, always urge people to use a benefits calculator when applying in case moving to universal credit would cost them money. Keeping the universal credit uplift would go some of the way, although not all the way, towards mitigating this unfairness, so if the universal credit cut goes ahead what is the Government’s proposed solution for these disabled people—or is this yet another area where the Government actually plan to level down?

Will Quince: The opposite is in fact the case. Many of those with a disability will be better off on universal credit, and it is important, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that they go on a benefits calculator—one of the independent benefits calculators on gov.uk—and check their eligibility. Labour Members—and the hon. Gentleman is no exception —regularly come to this House and ask for many billions of pounds more to be spent on benefits after the pandemic. Let us be clear: that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is asking for when he refers to the universal credit uplift. I have to say that we fundamentally disagree with Labour’s approach. It is an approach that under the last Labour Government left a generation trapped on benefits and in poverty, incentivised not to work, and left children growing up in workless households, and we know what that meant for their life chances. Work is the best route out of poverty, and that is why we have put jobs and supporting people into work at the heart of everything we do. The difference could not be clearer: Labour’s focus is on billions of pounds more on benefits and the Government’s focus is on jobs, jobs, jobs.

David Linden: It is not just the SNP, the Work and Pensions Committee and a range of stakeholders who are urging the UK Government to make the £20 uplift permanent, but 100 Conservative MPs in the Tory Reform Group and the one nation caucus. Is the Minister really saying that he disagrees with 100 of his own MPs who say it would be wrong to slash £1,000 a year from household budgets just as we are coming out of the teeth of this pandemic?

Will Quince: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and welcome him to his place. Throughout this pandemic, this Government have consistently stepped up to support the lowest-paid, poorest and most vulnerable in our society. During the pandemic, the focus has rightly been on ensuring that people facing the most financial disruption got the support that they needed as quickly as possible, but all evidence suggests that work is the best route out of poverty. We had a jobs miracle before the pandemic, and with the help of our £30 billion plan for jobs, the support of business and creating the right environment, we will do so again. That is exactly why we shift our focus to supporting people back into work and to progress in work. We are doing that with the extra 13,500 work coaches in our jobcentres up and down the country and our £30 billion comprehensive plan for jobs.

Prison Leavers: Support into Employment

Miriam Cates: What steps her Department is taking to support prison leavers into employment.

Therese Coffey: We are committed to cross-Government working to help prison leavers into work and to reduce reoffending. In support of the Prime Minister’s crime and justice taskforce, we are funding an additional 30 prison work coaches, bringing the total up to 200, to go into prisons after covid restrictions are lifted with a focus on both gaining employment and accessing benefits promptly, to remove excuses for prison leavers to return immediately to crime.

Miriam Cates: Northern College in my constituency is a resident education college that gives disadvantaged adults a second chance at adult education. Many students are former prisoners, but thanks to the college’s outstanding tuition and pastoral support, they go on to achieve educational success and secure well-paid employment. Sadly, the funding for such colleges is under threat, so will my right hon. Friend work with colleagues in the Department for Education to secure the future of Northern College and ensure that former prisoners continue to have access to this amazing opportunity to turn their lives around?

Therese Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I will absolutely share her concerns on the specific college to which she refers, Northern College. As I say, the Government are committed to helping ex-offenders to re-establish themselves back into the community and into work. As part of the Government taskforce, though, I am very keen to help prisoners get the right job skills while they are still in prison so they can walk straight out of prison into the world of work. However, the elements to which she refers will continue to be important in ensuring that people stay in jobs and succeed in jobs.

In-work Poverty

Emma Lewell-Buck: What recent assessment she has made of trends in the level of in-work poverty.

Kerry McCarthy: What recent assessment she has made of trends in the level of in-work poverty.

Tony Lloyd: What recent assessment she has made of trends in the level of in-work poverty.

Tan Dhesi: What recent assessment she has made of trends in the level of in-work poverty.

Will Quince: Analysis shows that prior to the pandemic, the poorest 20% of households saw their incomes increase by over 6% in 2019-20, even after taking account of inflation. Since the pandemic hit, we have strengthened the welfare system, spending £7.4 billion on measures such as the universal credit uplift, on top of additional support such as the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme. Her Majesty’s Treasury analysis has shown that the Government’s unprecedented support package means that working working-age households in the bottom 10% of the income distribution have seen no income reduction.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I am not at all surprised that the Minister’s answer bears little resemblance to the reality. Even pre-pandemic, 75% of children living in poverty lived in a household where at least one person worked. A recent NHS England-funded report found that around 700 child deaths could be avoided each year by reducing deprivation rates. Under this Government, work is no longer a route out of poverty. Why is that?

Will Quince: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I know the passion with which she raises the issue. We have measures in place to tackle in-work poverty, and we intend to go further: whether it is our 13,500 additional work coaches in Jobcentre Plus up and down our country, kickstart or restart, or our £30 billion plan for jobs, it will help tackle in-work poverty through progression in work. In addition, we have the In-Work Progression Commission, which will report in the coming months on the barriers to progression for those in persistent low pay and, importantly, set out a strategy for overcoming them.

Kerry McCarthy: I have lost count of the number of times the Minister said all the evidence suggests that work is the best route out of poverty. We agree, in that the last Labour Government showed how it could be done, but under this Government it is simply not true, is it? As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), 75% of children living in poverty are in a family where at least one parent is at work. Getting a low-paid and insecure job is not a route out of poverty if parents cannot afford childcare and housing, and if their universal credit will be cut. What is the Government’s strategy for making sure that work does pay?

Will Quince: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but the statistics show that full-time work substantially reduces the chance of poverty. The absolute poverty rate of a child where both parents work full time is 3% compared with 47% where one or more parents are in part-time work. That is why we are supporting people into full-time work wherever possible, for example through our comprehensive childcare offer. As I said, we had a jobs miracle before the pandemic, and, through our £30 billion plan for jobs and with the help of businesses up and down our country, we will again. Part of that is having a welfare system that encourages and incentivises work. With universal credit, that is exactly what we have.

Tony Lloyd: In my Rochdale constituency, no ward has fewer than one in five children living in poverty. Some wards have over half of all children living in poverty, and the bulk of those have parents who are working. That is a scandal. What is also a scandal is that the Minister insists that work always pays and keeps people out of poverty. It does not. What can he say to my constituents to assure them that they will be part of a genuine levelling-up process, with money in their pockets and their children not living in poverty?

Will Quince: When the opportunity allows, I would be delighted to visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I would say to him, however, that a child growing up in a home where all the adults are working is around five times less likely to be in poverty than a child in a household where nobody works. That is why our relentless focus is on supporting and empowering people into work, and progressing in work. As I said, we have a benefits system with universal credit, unlike the system proposed by Labour, that incentivises and encourages work—that is the key.

Tan Dhesi: Over the years, Ministers have parroted the same lines over and over again on poverty, which is that work is the route out of it. Elements of the right-wing media have been trying to unscrupulously label hard-working people as scroungers from the welfare state, yet the true legacy of a decade of Tory Government is that the number of households in poverty where at least one adult is working increased by almost 2 million people. What are the Government going to do to rectify that unacceptable situation and ensure that hard-working Brits get a decent wage?

Will Quince: I have been absolutely clear. The evidence suggests that work is the best route out of poverty and that is why, through our £30 billion plan for jobs, we plan to make that happen. We increased the national living wage and have taken millions of people out of income tax all together. We continue to take action on the cost of living and the Secretary of State is looking at further measures we can take in that regard, such as, for example, our childcare offer. As I said, our plan for jobs will be game-changing and I hope the hon. Gentleman will get behind it. I will of course be very happy to meet him and businesses in Slough to see how we can make it happen.

Kickstart: Youth Unemployment

Matt Western: If she will make an assessment of the effect of the kickstart scheme on long term youth unemployment.

Peter Aldous: What recent assessment she has made of the effect of the kickstart scheme on levels of employment among young people.

Therese Coffey: Youth unemployment is down compared with 2010, currently standing at 575,000 young people, and we have the second-highest youth employment rate in the G7, second only to Canada. We are conscious of the scarring effects of long-term unemployment, which is why we developed kickstart as the flagship of our plan for jobs. Since its launch in September, over 200,000 jobs have been approved and over 20,000 young people have started their jobs. As our recovery continues, we expect to see many more starts in the next few weeks and months ahead.

Matt Western: I am afraid it is more damp squib than kickstart. An IT support and services company in my constituency started the much vaunted kickstart process on 15 September last year, with the expectation that it could recruit after 30 days. Eight months on, it still does not have anyone. Its conclusion: the scheme is pretty much a waste of everyone’s time and resources. Put simply, does this explain the fact that for every 25 young people who have lost their jobs over the past 12 months, kickstart has helped just one back into work?

Therese Coffey: It is fair to say that 20,000 people now have a salary coming in every week that they did not have before. I am sure that the employment Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies)—will be happy to look into the specific circumstances of  the role to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Young people are not compelled to apply for kickstart if they are already applying for other jobs as well as part of their conditionality, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will look further into the matter if the hon. Gentleman provides the details.

Peter Aldous: Suffolk’s gateway partnership has been very successful in promoting and rolling out the kickstart scheme, but to ensure that this initiative realises its full potential in supporting young people into work, it needs to be extended well beyond the end of this year. I would be most grateful if my right hon. Friend and Suffolk colleague confirmed whether she agrees with that conclusion and whether she is making representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for funding to be provided at the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.

Therese Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour, and, indeed, I commend Suffolk’s gateway partnership and have seen its success in my role as MP for Suffolk Coastal. There are no current plans to extend the kickstart scheme. We want to focus on delivering jobs for young people as soon as we can, and eligible young people will be able to start new kickstart jobs until the end of this year—December 2021. Like him, I am very keen to make sure that we fill the vacancies we have. We are starting to see our first graduates who are getting permanent roles and we need to evaluate what the best route is for beyond, in 2022.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Seema Malhotra, the shadow Minister.

Seema Malhotra: May I say that this is going to be my last DWP questions in this role and thank the Minister for the constructive way that she has developed the relationship? I will be handing—

Lindsay Hoyle: This is disappointing news.

Seema Malhotra: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but I will be handing over to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), on whose behalf I ask this question.
Last month’s data shows kickstart helping less than 4% of 16 to 24-year- olds who have lost their jobs over the last year. The scheme is nowhere near matching the scale of the challenge and, even worse, the Department, as has just been confirmed, still plans to end the scheme just as unemployment is set to peak. Employers speak of delays of weeks for vacancies to be approved and then advertised. It is almost a year since the Chancellor announced kickstart. There is no excuse for long-term unemployment becoming a legacy of the pandemic, so when are things going to change, and will the Secretary of State now urgently review the December kickstart end date in line with calls by Labour, the Confederation of British Industry and the Youth Employment Group, so that employers can also plan ahead?

Therese Coffey: First, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role; I understand that she is moving into the shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy team and I am sure that she will be a huge success there, too.
In terms of kickstart, in the last four weeks, we have achieved, on average, 400 starts a day. This is in line with what we are seeing with the opening up of the economy. Today, we are on the first element of step 3, and we expect the starts under kickstart to get going. On the plan for jobs, we want to make sure that we properly evaluate all the measures to make sure that they achieve the ultimate goal of ensuring that as many people as possible are in work by the end of this year.

Kickstart: Thames Valley

Layla Moran: What recent estimate she has made of the number of (a) successful and (b) total applications to the kickstart scheme in the Thames Valley region.

Mims Davies: I can confirm that, as of 6 May, around 12,300 kickstart jobs had been made available for young people to apply for in the south-east of England region, and around 2,300 young people had already started in their new kickstart roles. Delivering the kickstart scheme at pace means that the DWP deal is still developing the tools to further break down the data on a more local level.

Layla Moran: I thank the Minister for her answer. I agree that helping young people to get into work through this crisis is of paramount importance, but I was deeply concerned to hear, in a business roundtable organised by our local enterprise partnership, that that data is being gathered only at a regional level by the DWP. This means that the LEP and the councils cannot assess how well Oxfordshire is doing or measure the efficiency of any interventions that we might put in place to do even better. I thank her for her explanation, but can she give us any timeline on when we can have this data broken down to at least upper-tier council level? And can she meet me and officials so that we can understand how to ensure that young people make the most of this scheme?

Mims Davies: I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue of getting young people into work. As we heard from the Secretary of State, approximately 400 young people, on average, have been going into work per day for the past four weeks. I urge her to meet the Rose Hill youth hub, the newly launched DWP youth hub that covers her constituency and has been working with Oxford Jobcentre Plus from April, as well as Aspire, Activate and Oxford City Council. That will give her the insight that she needs about what is happening on the ground. She can also meet the local youth employability work coaches. We are breaking down the data as far as we can, but our priority right now is to get young people into those new roles.

Special Rules for Terminal Illness

Emma Hardy: When she plans to publish her Department’s review of the special rules for terminal illness.

Justin Tomlinson: The Department is committed to delivering an improved benefits system for claimants  who are nearing the end of their lives, and is working across Government to bring forward proposals following the evaluation. I remain committed to implementing the key areas identified as soon as possible.

Emma Hardy: I have a constituent with incurable mantle cell lymphoma who does not meet the definition of terminal illness. She has been refused the personal independence payment, she is one year off her state pension, and because she owns a property that her disabled son lives in, she cannot claim means-tested benefits. She is in a dire financial situation. How much longer will she have to wait for the rules on terminal illness to be changed?

Justin Tomlinson: I thank the hon. Member for highlighting this. I do not know all the details, but if she is willing to share them, I would be very happy to look into that specific case. It highlights why we have carried out this vital evaluation, supported by stakeholders. The key three principles of improving awareness, consistency and scrapping the six-month rule remain a priority for our Department.

Employment: Young People

Steven Baker: What recent steps her Department has taken to help young people into employment.

Karl McCartney: What recent steps her Department has taken to help young people into employment.

Sara Britcliffe: What recent steps her Department has taken to help young people into employment.

Robbie Moore: What support her Department is providing to help young people into employment.

Ben Spencer: What recent steps her Department has taken to help young people into employment.

David Evennett: What recent steps her Department has taken to help young people into employment.

Mims Davies: The new enhanced DWP youth offer has provided wraparound support for young people since September 2020, delivering employment and skills support and training through our youth employment programme, new youth hubs and additional youth employability work coaches. We currently have more than 110 new youth hubs operating digitally or physically, with at least one in every JCP district. We will have more than 140 physical youth hubs delivering face-to-face support as the covid restrictions are lifted further.

Steven Baker: How is the Department encouraging businesses and other employers to sign up to these schemes so that we can create those vital jobs for  16 to 24-year-olds who might otherwise be long-term unemployed?

Mims Davies: We are doing it non-stop, as my hon. Friend will be pleased to know. The DWP Lords Minister —my noble Friend Baroness Stedman-Scott—and I regularly attend stakeholder and outreach events to promote kickstart to employers. Last week, I spoke to more than 90 employers at an event partnering with MyKindaFuture, a mentoring platform. The team in my hon. Friend’s local jobcentre are working with local employers to support those most at risk of long-term unemployment through the new opportunities they need. I am pleased to share with my hon. Friend that they recently helped a young man who was struggling with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to find a new kickstart job as a green keeper.

Karl McCartney: I have recently received correspondence from the learning and skills lead for automotive engineering at Lincoln College in my constituency, which is shortly due to hold Autoinform 14-19, a practical taster event that aims to allow young people to spend time in workshops with local employers and industry specialists looking at electric cars, acoustic vehicle alerting systems, diagnostic methods and the MOT test. One difficulty is securing schools’ buy-in with the scheme. How does my hon. Friend believe the Government can support organisations such as Lincoln College to ensure that we help as many young people into employment as possible?

Mims Davies: The DWP’s partnerships on the ground with local labour markets are key to these new employment opportunities. I am pleased that Lincoln JCP is working in partnership with the Network, a charity that aims to prevent young people from becoming NEET—not in education, employment or training—and engages with and connects to wider support. Customers will also benefit from a key partnership locally with the DWP, Lincolnshire Chamber of Commerce and the Lincoln College Group, which have created many new opportunities for our young people within the new kickstart scheme.

Sara Britcliffe: The Government have brought in some brilliant measures to get young people into employment and I witnessed that at first hand on a visit to NORI HR. We are also hosting an education summit locally, and I welcome the support from our local training providers such as North Lancs Training Group, but can the Minister set out what measures are in place to help jobcentres and training providers to work together so that people are fully aware of all the opportunities available to them?

Mims Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and I thank NORI HR for all its work. All MPs in this Chamber should take the opportunity to work with their local Jobcentre Plus team to support and promote kickstart. Locally, the DWP is working with employers such as NORI HR and also the Accrington Stanley community trust, which Members might have seen on “Football Focus” recently. The first cohort of employees started in March this year in a variety of kickstart roles including admin, sports coaching, youth work, site maintenance and leisure attendants. We are also working in partnership with the Hyndburn DWP youth hub to support our young people to be ready for these new kickstart roles.

Robbie Moore: Across Keighley and Ilkley, businesses care passionately about giving young people the skills they need for a successful career, and these include Byworth Boilers, an excellent business that offers apprenticeships to help local residents to take their first step on the career ladder. The desire from local businesses is there, but they often need Government help to turn this into a reality, so will my hon. Friend confirm how her Department is helping to give companies such as Byworth Boilers the chance to deliver for young people?

Mims Davies: I am more than happy to support Byworth Boilers and all the local employers, and to extend my thanks to the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and up and down the land that are putting forward opportunities to work with young people. I know that my hon. Friend works closely with the team at the Keighley jobcentre, who are in touch with many local employers including the Spoons Tearoom, Ideabean Software Technology and Superdrug, who are working together with the DWP to help to create new opportunities and progression for local jobseekers.

Ben Spencer: I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Young people have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic, given the high rates of unemployment in hospitality. Today I visited one of our local hotels, the Hilton Cobham, which has now fully reopened and is looking forward to welcoming the guests who enjoy Runnymede and Weybridge’s local attractions such as Thorpe Park, the Brooklands Museum and, of course, the birthplace of Magna Carta. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the next step in lifting the restrictions and invite people to visit and stay in Runnymede and Weybridge, to go to our fantastic pubs and restaurants to eat, drink and be merry and to support—[Inaudible.]— economy and jobs?

Mims Davies: I think I got the point; we all love a bit of Thorpe Park. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the wider return of hospitality in the travel and hotel sectors. This will be a vital boost to our economy and local jobs. In my hon. Friend’s jobcentre, we have new kickstart roles advertised in various hospitality areas including golf at Foxhills Country Club and Resort, sports and leisure through the RunThrough events team and social media opportunities with Little Olive Consulting, as well as vital local roles with Woking Borough Council and Surrey County Council.

David Evennett: I appreciate all that my hon. Friend is doing to help young people, many of whom will bounce back into work quickly and easily, but what dedicated support is available to help those who face more complex barriers to employment?

Mims Davies: My right hon. Friend is right. That is why we have our new youth hubs with work coaches dedicated to youth employability to support young people with complex needs. They are able to remove barriers and support young people into employment and, crucially, to continue that support for the next six weeks after they have moved into work. In my right hon. Friend’s area, the jobcentres are running crucial sector-based work academy programmes in social care, construction and security, as well as offering new kickstart roles to young people and working with the London Borough of Bexley, which is also a vital kickstart gateway.

Support for Families Living in Poverty

Barry Sheerman: What new steps she plans to take to support families living in poverty.

Will Quince: This Government have been clear that supporting people back into work and empowering them to progress in their role is the best approach to tackling poverty. Evidence shows that households where all the adults work are six times less likely to be in absolute poverty than households where nobody works. To help to fulfil our commitment to get people back into work, we are investing over £30 billion through—you guessed it, Mr Speaker—our ambitious plan for jobs, which is already delivering for people right across our country.

Barry Sheerman: Are this Government determined to be known as the most heartless Government since the end of the last world war? If these Ministers look at this morning’s report from Save the Children, they will see that 4 million children in our country are in poverty, going to bed at night with no food in their tummy. What are the Government going to do about that? It is a disgraceful state of affairs, and it is particularly hitting the north of England and people in the towns of West Yorkshire. Is it not about time we secured good, well-paid jobs and affordable childcare for these people, and tackled the problem, which has got worse and worse since 2010?

Will Quince: I am disappointed in that question, and I certainly do not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Gentleman. This Government have stepped up to support people facing financial disruption throughout this pandemic, pouring billions of pounds more into our welfare system to support those facing the most financial disruption. Those were short-term, temporary measures—we know that—to support people during the pandemic. I hope he will agree that it is right that our focus should shift to supporting people back into work and to progress into work, because we know that the evidence suggests that work is the best route of poverty. We will achieve this with our £30 billion plan for jobs.

Covid-19: Support for People on Legacy Benefits

Marion Fellows: What steps her Department is taking to support people on legacy benefits during the covid-19 outbreak.

Will Quince: We have introduced a substantial package of temporary welfare measures to support those on low incomes throughout the pandemic. We have paid out more than £100 billion in welfare support for people of working age this year and have consistently supported the lowest-paid families by increasing the living wage. This includes an investment of almost £1 billion into the local housing allowance rates, benefiting housing benefit and universal credit claimants alike. In addition, we have made sure that benefits retained their value against prices by raising benefits by a further £100 million from April 2021 in line with the consumer prices index.

Marion Fellows: The Trussell Trust reports that 62% of the working-age population referred to food banks were disabled, yet the Tories’ decision to deny people on legacy benefits the same £20 uplift as those on universal credit, which will be challenged in the High Court, continues to exclude 2 million disabled people, despite the extra costs they have faced during the pandemic. Will the UK Government finally provide the support that disabled people need, or will they continue trying to force people on to UC?

Will Quince: It is the policy of the Department not to comment on live litigation, so I will not comment on that aspect. I gently point out to the hon. Lady that we spend more than £57 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work reminds me that that is an extra £4 billion in real terms. That is support for people with disabilities and health conditions, and this is about 2.6% of our GDP.

Vicky Foxcroft: Ministers have been asked many times about the lack of uplift to legacy benefits, and every response has been woeful. The Government are now being taken to court to correct this discrimination. Do Ministers not see that they are discriminating against millions of disabled people on these benefits? This needs to be sorted. Does the Minister agree that it should not take a judicial review to tackle this injustice?

Will Quince: I have a lot of time for the shadow Minister, but however many times she asks the same question she is going to get the same response. The Government have focused support on UC and working tax credit claimants because they are more likely to be affected by the sudden economic shock of covid-19 than other legacy benefit claimants. I am not going to comment on the live litigation, but I would say that legacy claimants can make a new UC claim and benefit from the £20 a week increase; the Government encourage anybody to go on gov.uk and use one of the independent benefit calculators to check carefully their eligibility before they apply.

Topical Questions

Wendy Chamberlain: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Therese Coffey: The nation is today uniting to toast an important milestone in the Prime Minister’s road map to recovery, with the long-awaited full reopening of the hospitality sector—thank God for that, given the rain we are suffering. The British public have stood up to the challenge of the pandemic and, while still being cautious, we need to get out there and spend our dosh. Let’s do our bit to support our communities, businesses and jobs, including more than 1 million workers who were furloughed and whom I hope we will now see back at work. As hospitality booms, I am sure that many more new kickstarters will be out there, able to hit the ground running.

Wendy Chamberlain: Before the introduction of universal credit, single parents under the age of 25 received a higher rate of benefit payment in recognition of the increased costs of raising a child as a single parent,  but that support has sadly not been extended to young single parents who are in receipt of universal credit. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and the assessment of One Parent Families Scotland that the omission amounts to a “young parent penalty”?

Therese Coffey: No; we took a sensible approach in having a differential rate for universal credit. Of course, if any of the hon. Lady’s constituents would like support to secure extra income via the child’s other parent, the Child Maintenance Service is there to help parents in such situations.

Giles Watling: We have heard a lot about youth unemployment this afternoon. The House of Commons Library tells me that it has increased by 10%, with a 110% increase in the number of young people claiming unemployment benefits. Those statistics are concerning, especially for the Clacton constituency, where historically we have struggled with youth unemployment. We must get these young people back to work. The new lifetime skills guarantee will help, but what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Treasury about the introduction of national insurance contribution relief for employers who hire young people, as we have done for those that hire veterans? If discussions have not taken place, will they soon?

Mims Davies: I have regular discussions with a range of Ministers across the Government about how best to get young people into work and thriving. We are already incentivising employers to hire young people through the kickstart scheme, through which we pay wages and the associated national insurance contributions for six months. It is a job creation scheme for the young people who are most at risk of long-term unemployment, building vital experience throughout the pandemic and giving them the confidence and skills needed to thrive in their future workplace.

David Linden: The kickstart scheme was launched with much fanfare but it has been a bit of a flop, not to mention a headache for many businesses such as METERology in my constituency, which has been given a total runaround by the Secretary of State’s Department. Recent figures suggest that if the UK Government maintain a rate of 400 new employees starting each day, they should hit their target of 250,000 new jobs in 625 days—that is two years—so what more are they going to do to ensure that kickstart can really live up to its hype rather than just be a slogan for the Chancellor’s naff hoodie?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Gentleman is being ungracious. We are still at step 3 of the road map to recovery. Dare I say that the Scottish Government are putting up a roadblock to recovery by pursuing the whole independence agenda when they should be focused on the economic recovery? If the hon. Gentleman has specific constituency matters to raise, he is welcome to do so. As we go through the steps, we will see even more kickstarters taking full advantage of the generous support, which will help them and employers alike.

Robbie Moore: As the Pensions Minister knows from when we visited Airedale Springs together last September, climate change is a major  concern for many constituents of mine across Keighley and Ilkley. With COP26 now less than six months away, will my hon. Friend update the House on the progress the Government are making to ensure that pensions play their part in tackling climate change so that we can build back greener from the pandemic?

Guy Opperman: We are the first G7 country to legislate for net zero and lead the world in sustainable environmental investment, with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures and more, all of which address climate change. It was a pleasure to visit Airedale Springs, which is a great company that is doing good business but with due regard to climate change. That is our approach to UK pensions as we build back greener.

Matt Rodda: Some 200,000 women who worked hard and paid their taxes all their lives have been underpaid their state pensions. It is an absolute scandal. I welcome the announcement that the DWP is trying to repay the money owed to these women, who have been so badly let down, but the repayments are being made far too slowly. Will the Minister confirm how many repayments were made last month and when the Department will finally speed up the process?

Guy Opperman: It is good to see that the hon. Gentleman survived the deputy leadership reshuffle.
The simple point is that the DWP formally commenced correction activity on 11 January this year, and I published a written ministerial statement on 4 February this year. We are clearing up a mess, the responsibility for much of which goes back to the changes made under the Labour Government in 2008, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. Where underpayments are identified, the Department will contact the individual to inform them of the changes to their state pension amount and of any arrears payments that they will receive in accordance with the law.

Peter Aldous: My constituent Martin Burnell is living with motor neurone disease, which is a progressive terminal illness for which there is no effective treatment or cure. Earlier this year, he was told to reapply for his benefits or risk having them stopped. Will my hon. Friend commit to removing the burdensome and unacceptable requirement under the special rules that people with a terminal illness have to reapply for their benefits after three years?

Justin Tomlinson: As part of the Green Paper, we will be going further than the special rules for terminal illness evaluation to look at the principles of extending the severe health condition criteria to remove unnecessary assessments and reviews.

Emma Hardy: Youth unemployment is rising and one route out of this is through apprenticeships. One of the problems with apprenticeships can be apprenticeship pay, often described as apprenticeship poverty, where it costs more to attend work than the young apprentices earn. What is the Minister doing across Departments to address that injustice?

Mims Davies: I thank the hon. Lady for pointing out the great opportunities of apprenticeships. The kickstart scheme can lead to such an opportunity, and we will be explaining to young people the opportunities that exist through our youth hubs. On supporting people, we have our flexible support fund for people to get into work and to thrive in work. Our in-work progression report will be reporting soon and we will look at it closely to see whether it covers any of these matters.

Chris Green: As society leaves lockdown restrictions and recovery accelerates, will my right hon. Friend confirm that universal credit is designed not only for people who are unemployed, but to support people into work and to continue to support them while they are in employment?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is right. The design of universal credit means that people will always be better off working than not working. It is important that people take advantage of extra hours that they may be offered in order to get that benefit, and we will continue to help people get into that type of job.

Lilian Greenwood: According to research by the Resolution Foundation, we are facing a U-shaped unemployment crisis, which will hit the youngest and the eldest workers the hardest. For women who are already being forced to work beyond their expected retirement age, this only adds to their financial hardship and many fear that they will never find work again. Do the Government have any plans to help, or will they continue to let down these hard-working women, many of whom started in the labour market when they were just 15 or 16 years old?

Mims Davies: Older workers can get help from their work coach if they need further qualifications or modern certifications. The DWP works with the Government’s business champion for older workers, providing outreach and advice for employers. We encourage all employers to reap the many benefits of recruiting workers who can bring a wealth of skills and experience to any workplace. I advise people to head to the JobHelp website, to look at the Department for Education’s digital toolkit, or to speak to their work coach about any support so that they can perhaps have the best part of their career in the final years of their career.

Jacob Young: This Government are focused on getting more people into work through an ambitious plan for jobs. However, last week I was contacted by a constituent in Redcar and Cleveland who is a qualified primary teaching assistant looking for work. She told me that, every time she declares her autism and epilepsy, employers sadly decide not to pursue her applications further. What more can the Government do to encourage employers to give differently abled people such as my constituent the equal opportunity of work?

Justin Tomlinson: My hon. Friend highlights a vital issue, which is why we have developed a disability confident toolkit with stakeholders to provide comprehensive information and guidance for employers on autism and hidden impairments. I hope that his constituent’s undoubted talents will be unlocked shortly.

Alison Thewliss: Govanhill Housing Association has told me that, each time there is a rent increase, some tenants inadvertently go into arrears as they do not realise that they have to notify the DWP. Will Ministers make a common-sense change to this bureaucracy to allow housing providers to report any rent increases directly for all their tenants rather than as a fallback?

Will Quince: I have explored this issue, which is a little bit more complicated than the hon. Lady makes out. We have been working with housing associations. I would be very happy to sit down with her and have a briefing on the matter with officials.

Duncan Baker: I welcome the DWP’s commitment to delivering an improved welfare system for people with a terminal illness, and I hope that it can be delivered very soon. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the proposals to change the special rules will not be included in the upcoming Green Paper, which would result in further delay and would be unnecessary, as the DWP has already consulted stakeholders?

Justin Tomlinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The SRTI—special rules for terminal illness—evaluation has been completed and will not need to be rerun through the forthcoming Green Paper.

Steve McCabe: Will the Minister recommend that his colleagues purchase and read the recently released e-book, “The Brown Envelope Book”, which contains more than 200 poems, pieces of prose and short plays about disabled people who say they have been
“brutalised by the bureaucracy of the Department for Work and Pensions”?

Justin Tomlinson: The Government are rightly proud of providing record amounts of support for people with disabilities and long-term health conditions. Through our forthcoming health and disability Green Paper, we will work with stakeholders and those with real lived experience to make sure that we improve the services and support we provide.

Robert Largan: Tomorrow, I will be hosting a workshop between local disability support groups and the DWP in my constituency to discuss the Green Paper. Ahead of that meeting, will the Minister update the House on what steps are being taken to increase access to benefits and support for the most vulnerable people during the pandemic?

Justin Tomlinson: I thank my hon. Friend for being so proactive, along with about 50 other MPs who have already agreed to host health and disability Green Paper events to look at the key themes of advocacy, getting supportive evidence, the assessment process and the appeals process. It is the Government’s absolute priority to support those with disabilities and long-term health conditions.

Daniel Zeichner: I have a constituent who, after having her jab recently, had a nasty reaction and could not go to work the following day. She then found that she had lost 10 hours’ pay—half  her week’s wages. That is the world of precarious work, and it certainly does not encourage people to have a jab, so what can the Government do to rectify the situation?

Justin Tomlinson: I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. We have been improving guidance and sharing best practice with employers. We have also made changes to statutory sick pay for those who are either self-isolating or sick to remove the four-day wait. It is disappointing to hear how that specific employer has treated their hard-working employee.

Henry Smith: What support is the Department for Work and Pensions providing to those who have unfortunately been made unemployed in aviation communities, which have of course been particularly negatively impacted by the covid-19 pandemic?

Mims Davies: My hon. Friend knows the pain of the impact on the aviation sector, as do I in my nearby constituency. The DWP has a range of support for individuals who have been employed in this sector and are affected. The DWP rapid response service provides key help and advice for employers and their employees if they are facing redundancy. Our work coaches provide claimants with individual personalised support, utilising our plan for jobs, which includes SWAP—the sector-based work academy programme—for those currently displaced by the impact on the aviation sector. That can help to build confidence and transfer their very wide-ranging  skills into other opportunities for the short or the longer term. I am pleased that many of them are working locally, vaccinating—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us go to Geraint Davies.

Geraint Davies: Every day, 7.6 million people go without sufficient nutritious food, according to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, so will the Secretary of State look carefully at the Welsh Government’s pilot for a universal basic income, and will she provide an estimate for the cost of a UK roll-out of a universal basic income?

Therese Coffey: Ah, my favourite question on UBI. The answer is no. If the Welsh Government wish to use the extra money they receive through the Barnett formula to undertake other aspects, the question is whether it is within their legal powers to do so. I am conscious that we all want to make sure that food insecurity comes to an end, and that is why we are working across Government to tackle it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I will now suspend the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Antisemitic Attacks

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call the Secretary of State to respond to the urgent question, I have a short statement to make. I know that all Members will be deeply concerned by the footage of apparently antisemitic behaviour that appeared online yesterday. I understand that a number of individuals have been arrested in relation to the incident, but that no charges have yet been made. Therefore, the House’s sub judice resolution is not yet formally engaged. However, I remind all Members to exercise caution and avoid referring to the details of specific cases in order to avoid saying anything that might compromise any ongoing investigation or subsequent prosecution.
I call the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who has three minutes to answer the urgent question from Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on recent antisemitic attacks across the UK.

Robert Jenrick: No one could fail to be appalled by the disgraceful scenes of antisemitic abuse directed at members of the Jewish community in the past week. In Chigwell, Rabbi Rafi Goodwin was hospitalised after being attacked outside his synagogue. In London, activists drove through Golders Green and Finchley, both areas with large Jewish populations, apparently shouting antisemitic abuse through a megaphone. These are intimidatory, racist and extremely serious crimes. The police have since made four arrests for racially aggravated public order offences and have placed extra patrols in the St John’s Wood and Golders Green areas.
During Shavuot, as always, we stand with our Jewish friends and neighbours, who have sadly been subjected to a deeply disturbing upsurge in antisemitism in recent years, particularly on social media. Like all forms of racism, antisemitism has no place in our society. A lot of young British Jews are discovering for the first time that their friends do not understand antisemitism, cannot recognise it and do not care that they are spreading it. British Jews are not responsible for the actions of a Government thousands of miles away, but are made to feel as if they are. They see their friends post social media content that glorifies Hamas—an illegal terrorist organisation, whose charter calls for every Jew in the world to be killed. Today, the world celebrates International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. Under Hamas, people are murdered for being gay.
Every time the virus of antisemitism re-enters our society, it masks itself as social justice, selling itself as speaking truth to power. This Government are taking robust action to root it out. We are leading the way as the first Government to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism and calling on others to do the same. As a result, nearly three quarters of local councils have adopted it. I have written to councils and universities that are still dragging  their feet. They will shortly be named and shamed if they fail to act. All Members of Parliament, bar one, have signed up to it.
We are also doing our utmost to keep the Jewish community safe through the £65 million protective security grant to protect Jewish schools, synagogues and community buildings. We are working closely with the Community Security Trust to ensure victims can come forward and report attacks to the police.
We recognise that education is one of the most powerful tools we have for tackling antisemitism. We are proud to back the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Anne Frank Trust, among others, to ensure that we challenge prejudice from an early age. With the last holocaust survivors leaving us, we are also ensuring that future generations never forget where hatred can lead through—I hope—a new world-class holocaust memorial and learning centre next to the Palace of Westminster. It is currently awaiting the outcome of a planning inquiry. Some of the opposition to it has only served to make the case for why it is needed.
Today, the Government and, I hope, the whole House send a clear message of support and reassurance to our Jewish friends and neighbours. We seek a society where the UK’s largest established religions can live safely and freely, and can prosper, as an essential part of a nation that is confident in its diversity but ultimately strong in its unity.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am very disappointed. I said at the beginning that the Secretary of State had three minutes, and he went on to take four minutes. Unfortunately, I do not make the rules of the House, but I have to stick to them. We now go to Robert Halfon, who is participating virtually, with two minutes.

Robert Halfon: In a 2018 House of Commons debate on antisemitism, I said the air had grown tighter for Jews:
“you feel very hot, you undo a button on your shirt and your mouth goes dry.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 262.]
Sadly, after yesterday’s horrific incidents, highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—particularly the rabbi being beaten up in Chigwell in Essex—I fear that the air has become even tighter. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing) for her strong support against antisemitism.
Since 2018, the Community Security Trust has recorded the highest ever number of antisemitic incidents—more than 1,800 in 2019. In Harlow just a few days ago, swastikas were graffitied on walls in a public walkway. Thankfully, they have now been removed. Why, in the 21st century, must Jewish schools and synagogues have guards outside? The growth of antisemitism has happened for a number of reasons. There are too many of what Vladimir Lenin called “useful idiots”, whether they are some Labour party activists, condemned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and those who use the conflict in Israel as an excuse; the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen telling Jews to read negative articles about Jews; or the NUS giving moral equivalence to antisemitism and what it calls the liberation of Palestine. I remind the House that the so-called liberation is being conducted by Iranian-funded extreme Islamist terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.
What protections and support are being given specifically to Jews and to the Community Security Trust? What are the Government doing to educate pupils about antisemitism so that this evil is wiped out? Will there be severe penalties for those found guilty of antisemitic behaviours? As a proud British Jewish MP, I never imagined that I would live at a time when I and the Jewish community would question whether Britain is a safe place for Jews any more.

Robert Jenrick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks today and his long record of supporting the British Jewish community and fighting antisemitism. We must ensure that this is a country where our Jewish friends and neighbours feel safe, and I am sure that the whole House will send a strong message today of support and reassurance to them.
The Government will continue to support the Community Security Trust—I join my right hon. Friend in praising its work. Partly funded by the Government and partly by philanthropy, it helps to ensure the security of 650 Jewish communal buildings and 1,000 events every year. It has reported to us a steep rise this week in antisemitic incidents—a 320% increase in a week. I am afraid that that is likely to rise further as there is always a delay in reporting. We will continue to support the trust and we will work with the Metropolitan police and police forces in other parts of the country, who are putting out extra patrols in the coming days to provide reassurance to Jewish citizens.
We will also support groups across the country, for example, the Union of Jewish Students, which does so much good work for Jews on campuses across the UK who suffer antisemitic attacks and abuse. We will keep on with that work as well as the educational work to which my right hon. Friend referred. In my opening remarks, I paid tribute to a number of the fantastic organisations, such as the Holocaust Memorial Trust, which deliver that day in, day out, and have continued to do so even during the difficulties that covid-19 posed.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I commend the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing the urgent question. What we saw and heard in the footage from the streets of London yesterday was vile antisemitism and sickening, threatening mysogyny. Those who engage in that appalling, terrible behaviour should feel the full force of the law.
Time and again, we have seen these attacks aimed at the Jewish community. The Community Security Trust, which I also commend for its work, recorded 63 antisemitic incidents from 8 to 16 May. We send a clear, unequivocal message that that is not acceptable—not then, not now, not ever. I have been moved by the Jewish community’s sharing testimonies at the weekend. I have contacted the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Community Security Trust to make clear the absolute condemnation on these Benches for those terrible acts.
There is too often a completely unacceptable pattern: distressing scenes in the middle east—we on these Benches have called for a ceasefire—can lead to a minority of people attempting to whip up hatred between communities. There is often an upsurge in Islamophobic attacks, too. Those who do that do not in any sense represent those who seek to bring about peace in the middle east.
I understand that four men have been arrested, but I ask the Secretary of State whether anyone else is being sought. What more can be done, particularly in intelligence gathering, to prevent this kind of incident from happening again? What additional support is being given to places of worship and other key sites at this worrying time? Does the Secretary of State agree that, in response to those who seek to stoke division and hatred, we must stand united and send a message that they will never win?

Robert Jenrick: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his strong words today, which will have been heard by Jewish communities across the country. The whole of the House of Commons is united in this regard. He is also right to say that whatever one’s views are on the current conflict in Israel and Gaza, that is no excuse whatsoever for the kind of antisemitic abuse or, indeed, anti-Muslim hatred that we are seeing on our streets right now. Tell MAMA, which reports the number of anti-Muslim incidents, has also informed us that there has been a rise in incidents directed against the Muslim community in recent days. Both are unacceptable, and both need to be tackled.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the police should be taking a lead, and we expect the police to be urgently investigating the issues that we have seen in recent days. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has spoken with the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, who has given assurances that the police will do everything they can to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice. Further patrols are now happening in areas with larger Jewish communities in London, for example, and I know that other police forces in other parts of the country, such as Greater Manchester, are taking the same proactive approach. As I said in my opening remarks, the police have since made four arrests for racially aggravated public order offences, and have placed extra patrols in the St John’s Wood and Golders Green areas.
With respect to the incident regarding the rabbi in Chigwell, Essex police have announced that they are investigating the incident as a religiously aggravated assault, and have appealed for witnesses. They are engaging with the affected communities equally to provide reassurance, and I call on anyone who may have been a witness to either of those events or, indeed, others across the country to come forward as soon as possible.

Andrew Percy: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the concern you have shown the British Jewish community today by granting this urgent question so soon. The fact that people feel emboldened to drive through Jewish neighbourhoods calling for the rape of women, or to march through the streets of London warning Jews that an army is coming against them, does not happen in isolation. It happens because antisemitism on campuses is ignored; because university lecturers who target Jewish students are not dealt with; because far-right holocaust denial content on online platforms is not dealt with; and because some people, some campaigners —including, perhaps, some in this place—place an emphasis on Israel and use emotive language that they do not use in relation to other conflicts, while giving Hamas, the terror tunnels and the murder weapons a free pass. That is why it happens: it does not happen in isolation, and enough is enough.
I thank the Secretary of State for what he has said today, but I urge him to go even further. It is great that we are putting so much money into holocaust education, but we have to go further in ensuring that every child in this country is taught about antisemitism, as they should be taught about Islamophobia and all racism.

Robert Jenrick: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is crucial that we ensure that young people uphold the values of this country and understand antisemitism. That is one of the reasons why we were the first country in the world to sign up to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, which makes it abundantly clear that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. It is one of the reasons why we fund the Holocaust Educational Trust, and why we have now expended its remit from going into schools to going into universities as well. We also fund a range of other organisations.
It is also important to underline the point that my hon. Friend made: Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, and those considering its activities or reporting upon them should make very clear the kind of organisation it is and the relationship that the UK has with it, which is that we do not engage with a terrorist organisation.

Stuart McDonald: I, too, thank the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for having secured this urgent question, which offers us an opportunity to unite in unequivocal opposition to, and condemnation of, antisemitism. There is never any excuse or justification for it, and hatred expressed here helps absolutely nobody, anywhere. The events that have already been described were absolutely horrendous—vile, targeted antisemitism and misogyny—and our solidarity goes out to the Jewish communities directly targeted and to everyone across the country who has suffered such hatred. We support all steps to bring the perpetrators to justice and all initiatives to tackle antisemitism.
Finally, can I suggest that we also take this opportunity to condemn all forms of racism and religious hatred, whether it is antisemitism, Islamophobia, or the atrocious anti-Catholic bigotry witnessed this weekend during disgraceful disorder by Rangers fans in Glasgow city centre? It has absolutely no place, and there is absolutely no excuse for it. I am sure that Members across the House will agree that we all have a duty to call it out and condemn it.

Robert Jenrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. Like him, this Government have zero tolerance for all forms of racism, including antisemitism. We must do everything we can to ensure that where individuals do perpetrate these crimes, they are brought to justice.

Michael Fabricant: I have been heartened by some of the comments made so far. However, it was frightening and horrible over the weekend to watch videos of people hurling abuse from cars; to hear about the rabbi who was badly beaten up; and to see pictures from the Arndale centre of yobs—from Bradford, I am told—intimidating shoppers and shouting antisemitic remarks. And it is dreadful that it is happening in this country. Of course, all racism, whether it be antisemitism, Islamophobia or anti-Catholicism, must be condemned,  but my question is: what lessons have been learned about this? Some might say that all of this was predictable as soon as it was known that the march was going to happen. What lessons have been learned, and what new practices are the police going to put in place to make sure that this sort of thing cannot happen again?

Robert Jenrick: I, for one, never thought that I would see banners being held aloft on the streets of London, apparently with impunity, saying, “Death to Jews”, or individuals being able to drive for some time through neighbourhoods, broadcasting the kind of antisemitic bile that we saw over the weekend. That is disgraceful. It is wrong and we need to ensure that our police services are equipped to take action quickly and robustly when this happens again in the future. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will speak again to her counterparts so that they can ensure that where such instances arise in the future, action is taken as fast as possible, as we would expect with regard to any other racist or intimidatory incident.

Margaret Hodge: May I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing this urgent question? Like others, seeing racist posters, swastikas, a rabbi attacked and a racist convoy going through north London, I could see that the message was one of hate and, often, misogyny. This House is sending out a very strong message today denouncing this vile racism. But our message cannot just be for today. Tragically, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not go away, and we must be able to debate and disagree without Jew hate or Islamophobia taking over. What action is the Secretary of State taking beyond today, and beyond the brilliant work that the Holocaust Educational Trust is doing with young people, to inform and educate communities throughout Britain, including elected representatives, so that a discussion on an international conflict does not morph into a national expression of hate?

Robert Jenrick: I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks and, of course, for her own record of standing up to antisemitism in the past. She is right to say that this is, sadly, just one of a number of incidents, and past incidents of this nature have flared up at the same time as conflict in the middle east. In 2014, for example, there was a significant spike in antisemitic incidents. Many members of the Jewish community are fearful that we will see a similar situation now. Indeed, some have said to me that there is greater intensity today than there was back then, perhaps fuelled by the rise of social media.
We need to ensure that we are rooting out antisemitism and doing so through education, working with all parts of society. That is one of the reasons that the Prime Minister and I have appointed Sara Khan as our independent adviser, who will tackle extremism of any kind and ensure that it cannot exist with impunity in plain sight. All parts of Government and civil society must play their part in that—not just central Government and local authorities, but charities, schools and faith groups the length and breadth of the country.

Sir David Amess: I very much agree with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). Many Jewish people in Southend were appalled at the disgusting scenes in north London over the weekend. I stand with  them, and I am frankly bemused at how those events were allowed to happen in the first place. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever that the Government continue to support the work of the Community Security Trust, which does such vital work to keep the Jewish community safe through the protective security grant? I know that money is tight, but will he ensure that sufficient funding is made available to the trust, to enable the Jewish community to worship safely and peacefully?

Robert Jenrick: The Community Security Trust has an absolutely essential role in supporting Jewish institutions such as schools, nurseries and places of worship—frankly, places that should not need to have security. As the father of Jewish children, it shocks me every time I take my children to synagogue or to their nursery to see individuals in stab-proof vests guarding the entrance to those places. That should not have to happen in this country, but it does happen today, and we will continue to support the Community Security Trust, giving it all the funding it needs to protect Jewish communities.

Yvette Cooper: The whole House will stand in solidarity with Jewish people across the country in the face of vile antisemitism, misogynistic hate speech, violence and incitement. No one should be in any doubt that attempting to blame Jewish communities for the actions of the Israeli Government is appalling antisemitism and is wrong. The Secretary of State will know that the kinds of incident we saw over the weekend are also being fuelled by online antisemitism and extremism, and he will have seen the recent CST report on Google and antisemitic imagery. What more is he doing to tackle this awful online antisemitism?

Robert Jenrick: The right hon. Lady raises an extremely important point. The Home Secretary and the Culture Secretary are working closely on this issue. They are in contact with the providers to ensure that antisemitic and other hate speech is taken down quickly and that action is taken against the perpetrators. Of course, this is an issue that we will return to and debate when considering the online harms Bill, which I hope will play a role. My Department is also funding organisations that are taking action to put a counter-narrative on social media, to educate people about the harm that is caused by antisemitism and to ensure that people of all backgrounds—particularly young people—understand that some of the memes and graphics that are being circulated as we speak are deeply antisemitic and deeply offensive to communities and are fuelling the kind of hatred that boiled on to the streets over the weekend.

Simon Fell: We have seen vile physical and verbal assaults against Jews in the real world, but there is also a deep well of antisemitic content online and on social media, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, which often goes unchallenged. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these clearly antisemitic messages cannot be allowed to continue? Memes are allowed to socialise and water down some of the horrific content online. Can he outline what action the Government will take against not just mainstream social media companies but smaller ones such as BitChute and Telegram, where some of the worst content is shared?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend raises a number of important points. It is not simply an issue of the large international providers; there are smaller ones as well. They all need to be subject to the regulatory regime that we are devising and will legislate for in the online harms Bill. We are taking action as we speak, and the Culture Secretary, the Home Secretary and I are working with those providers to ensure that harmful antisemitic content is seen, identified and removed as quickly as possible.

Wera Hobhouse: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I would like to add our unequivocal condemnation of all forms of racism and hate speech, including the appalling antisemitic abuse recorded on the streets of London. The Secretary of State has already agreed that we must all actively condemn and confront all forms of inflammatory rhetoric by those with public platforms. Can he expand on how he sees the work of Government encouraging us here and the public at large to get to a place where we can stop such appalling racial abuse and misogynistic hate crimes?

Robert Jenrick: We are taking a number of actions in my Department, and we work with organisations right across society, including faith organisations, to ensure that those perpetrating abuse and discriminatory behaviour of this kind are brought to justice. We want to ensure that we have a tolerant society. We are proud of the diversity in this country, but we also want a united country in which all people feel comfortable and safe. That is why we are taking the actions that we are taking, and why we are working with our hate crime action group and a number of organisations all over the UK to raise awareness and to stamp out this kind of abusive behaviour where we find it.

Christian Wakeford: Today, Jewish people in my constituency and around the world will be gathering to mark the festival of Shavuot, and I wish them all a good and a safe Yom Tov. As the Member with the largest Jewish community outside London, I have been contacted by constituents scared to take their children to shul, due to the appalling scenes of antisemitism on the streets of the UK over the weekend. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the Jewish community cannot be targeted due to the situation in the middle east, and will he reassure the community in Bury South and across the country that the police will deal with all instances of antisemitism with the utmost severity?

Robert Jenrick: I hope I can provide the reassurance that police forces across the country, including in Greater Manchester, are taking action to ensure that there are patrols and, where there are incidents, that they are investigated and individuals are brought to justice, where necessary. I was very concerned to see the intimidating scenes at the Arndale centre in Manchester, and I would not want to see those repeated. We want to provide protection to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and that is exactly what we will do.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Plaid Cymru has a long tradition of promoting peace over conflict and of standing alongside oppressed people. This includes calling for the human right of people in Palestine and Israel to be able to live in peace. The language we use in politics matters, and everyone seeking  peace knows that words used irresponsibly can be twisted into weapons. This week, Jews in the UK have suffered hate speech, threats and acts of violence both on the streets and over social media. Does the Secretary of State agree that the online harms Bill provides an opportunity to protect not only individuals, but groups of people from hate speech that incites such violence?

Robert Jenrick: I think that the online harms Bill outlined in the Queen’s Speech will be an important weapon in our arsenal, enabling us to take action against the virus of antisemitism and other forms of hate speech where they occur online. That is absolutely critical; we find it in many other aspects of our life. That is one of the reasons we pursued the IHRA definition, and have urged institutions to sign up to it, such as councils, universities and, of course, Members of this House. There is more work to be done there, and a particular focus for this Government will now be in universities. Many have not signed up to that definition, and many have done so but not yet put it into practice. We need to see urgent change there.

Steve Double: I welcome and indeed echo the words of the Home Secretary at the weekend in urging the police to take the strongest possible action against those responsible for these horrific and totally unacceptable incidents of antisemitism. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will work closely with the Home Office to ensure that all those responsible will be held to account and face justice as soon as possible?

Robert Jenrick: Antisemitic crimes, like all those with regard to racism, are serious crimes, and we expect police forces investigating these issues to do so rigorously, robustly and swiftly, and for action to be taken against the individuals if they are found to require prosecution. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is working with the Metropolitan police, and has received assurances from them that they will be doing everything they can to bring these individuals to justice.

Charlotte Nichols: Last night, Jewish communities across the country began our celebrations for the festival of Shavuot, and I wish all of those marking it a chag sameach. The scenes of antisemitic and misogynistic abuse yesterday have been incredibly disturbing and have caused significant alarm and distress, coming off the back of a rise in hate crime incidents both online and in physical attacks on and desecrations of our places of worship. I have been heartened by unequivocal condemnations from across society, including by the Muslim Council of Britain and the Palestinian ambassador in the UK, as they recognise that all forms of racism and oppression reinforce one another, that they cannot be fought in isolation from each other and that we all have more in common than that which divides us. What support, therefore, will the Secretary of State provide to interfaith initiatives such as the Warrington Ethnic Communities Association and the Muslim Jewish Forum of Greater Manchester to help us build solidarity and co-operation across our communities, where a minority of extremists seek to divide us?

Robert Jenrick: I thank the hon. Lady, and wish her chag sameach as well. We are working with a number of different groups that help bridge the divide and ensure that there is greater understanding among different groups in society. There are many such groups, including Solutions Not Sides, and Streetwise with its Stand Up! programme. They are important, but we want other parts of civil society to step up too. The report that Sara Khan produced earlier in the year for the Prime Minister was significant, saying that there is more work to be done by schools, local councils and civil society organisations to take their responsibilities seriously now in rooting out extremism and encouraging a better understanding between different parts of society. That work needs to be done swiftly, and Sara Khan is now part of my Department, independently advising myself and the Prime Minister on how we can take that work forward.

Aaron Bell: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
Like many Members, I saw the scenes in north London unfolding on social media and obviously was completely appalled. While those events were unfolding the Metropolitan police tweeted:
“Officers are in the area and are engaging with those taking part.”
I do not wish to condemn the Metropolitan police for one misjudged tweet in the heat of the moment, but does my right hon. Friend agree that that tweet misses the mark entirely and does not take what happened yesterday sufficiently seriously? I welcome the arrests that have taken place, but does he agree with me and the Home Secretary that we need to see the strongest possible action against all those who took part in yesterday’s disgraceful scenes?

Robert Jenrick: Yes, I do. I am grateful for the work of the Metropolitan police, Essex Police and other police forces across the country in recent days and the work they will be doing right now providing reassurance to Jewish communities, but my hon. Friend is right that the correct response to an incident like this is not merely engagement; the Jewish community, like all of us in society, wants to see action against the perpetrators of those offences. That is now happening: individuals have been arrested and those crimes are being investigated.

Martyn Day: I think we can all agree with the Centre for Holocaust Education on the importance of education in tackling antisemitism. However, given that a recent survey found that only 37% of young people know what the term “antisemitism” means, what more can the right hon. Gentleman do to ensure adequate funding is made available for education programmes so that future generations are aware of the history and causes of antisemitism?

Robert Jenrick: We have only to look on social media today to see that a very large number of our fellow citizens do not understand what antisemitism is, or else they would not be liking and sharing some of the memes and graphics, which are antisemitic and deeply offensive and are helping to fan the flames of the kinds of incidents we have seen in recent days. The Government are taking action in a number of respects, through the Holocaust Educational Trust, which the hon. Gentleman  rightly praises, and the Antisemitism Policy Trust, which is doing work online, and through other works with the Holocaust education centre which we hope will be built near the Palace of Westminster and holocaust museums across the country, such as the Beth Shalom museum in north Nottinghamshire, so that we can raise awareness of these issues and help to debunk some of the myths.

John Howell: The antisemitism of the weekend has been inflamed by allegations originating with perhaps easily disproved campaigns concerning the al-Aqsa mosque, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Muslims worship there during Ramadan and Eid. My right hon. Friend has described a lot of what he is going to do, but what more can he do to stop antisemitic mistruths being used to drive a wedge between communities here in the UK?

Robert Jenrick: That is an extremely important point. As I have said, there is work to be done online and in our schools, and there is also work we can do through the creation of new museums and educational institutions such as the memorial that we hope will be built. There is also work for all of us just as citizens of this country, to call out antisemitism wherever we find it and see it, and ensure that there is no immunity—there is no safe space for it in the way that I am afraid many people feel there is today.

Tan Dhesi: Antisemitism, and any other form of racism, is utterly abhorrent and must be swiftly dealt with. Many of us are strong advocates for the Palestinian people, to stop them being evicted from their homes and to demand an immediate end to the current bloodshed, but for racists who parade as allies of Palestine to use this tragedy to fuel antisemitism and misogyny is utterly condemnable. Is the Secretary of State concerned about the possibility of far-right organisations using this to stir further community tensions? If so, what steps will the Government take to address it?

Robert Jenrick: As I said earlier, when we have seen conflicts arise or intensify in the middle east in the past, that has led to an upsurge in hate crimes against both members of the Jewish community and members of the Muslim community. We saw that in 2014. I hope that we are not witnessing a similar situation today, although I think many would say that we are. We need to take concerted action now. That is why it is important that, with your support, Mr Speaker, we are having this debate; that the police provide the reassurance that they are on the streets of our cities in the places where there are Jewish communities; and that where there are incidents against members of the Jewish community or the Muslim community, action is taken very swiftly and in the strongest possible terms.

Matthew Offord: Having the second largest number of Jewish constituents in the country, I know that yesterday’s events caused great concern to many. The Community Security Trust told me this morning that it had recorded 63 confirmed cases of antisemitism over the weekend, with more cases expected. Most shockingly, that included a Jewish teacher being abused by pupils in the classroom. In the protests, we saw conflation of Jewish identity with  Zionism, which ensures that British Jews are physically and verbally attacked for actions that occur in Israel for which they have no cause or control. In a comment echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), one constituent told me that many people are asking the same question as before the 2019 election; namely, is there a future for Jewish people in this country? Can the Secretary of State please advise my constituents if there is?

Robert Jenrick: Yes, there certainly is. As the father of three young Jewish girls, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the British Jewish community feel protected, feel safe and feel that they can continue to thrive in this country. They are our longest-established religious minority. They have added so much to this country over the generations, and I hope that they will do so for many, many generations to come.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am unashamedly a friend of Israel, and I condemn the antisemitic attacks in London over the weekend and welcome the police response that the Secretary of State referred to. However, does he not agree that headlines such as “Israel launches airstrikes on Gaza Strip after Hamas rocket attacks” may prevent readers from understanding that Israel launched rockets in defence and not first? Does he agree that no resolution will be found if the media continue to stir tension with biased reporting? Further, will he confirm once more, to make it very clear, that Israel has a right to defend herself, and that while we may ask Israel to enter into peace talks, we will never disregard her right to defend herself against any attack?

Robert Jenrick: Let me be perfectly clear: the UK Government believe that Israel has a right to self-defence. The UK Government believe that that must be exercised proportionately and with due regard to civilians. We will ensure, as far as we can, that both sides engage. If there is any route now to bring this to a peaceful resolution, it must be sought, and we are doing that at the United Nations and in every forum that is available to us. But we will also condemn any form of antisemitism that we see in this country. Jewish citizens are citizens of the United Kingdom. They are not in any way responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government, whether good or bad. They are citizens of the United Kingdom; they deserve our complete support, and they have it today.

Tulip Siddiq: Yesterday, racists drove past the amazing Jewish community centre JW3 on Finchley Road in my constituency shouting antisemitic hate speech. I am very proud to represent an area with a sizeable Jewish community and several synagogues, but my Jewish constituents are now feeling unsafe in their own homes. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that these hate crimes are punished, and will he provide additional resources to protect community centres like JW3, Jewish schools and synagogues?

Robert Jenrick: I thank the hon. Lady for her work. I appreciate that yesterday’s events played out partly in her constituency, and partly in the constituencies of the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders  Green (Mike Freer), who would, I am sure, be speaking on behalf of his constituents today if he were able to. We must now ensure that residents of all those parts of London, and indeed elsewhere in the country, have the reassuring presence of police on the streets, and the knowledge that should these events arise again the police will be there to support them and to take action against the perpetrators. We will continue to provide support to the Community Security Trust and other good organisations that help to protect community centres, synagogues, schools and nurseries as far as we possibly can, and money is no object in that regard. Members of the Jewish community have our complete support in the months and weeks to come.

Karen Buck: I am glad that Westminster North is home to a large Jewish community. It is also home to the largest Arab community in Britain. Many people, across party, work very hard to ensure community cohesion. That work was undermined desperately by the events yesterday: the spewing of vile misogyny and antisemitism by the convoy that drove through Westminster North, among other areas. The police have acted swiftly with arrests and reassurance patrols, but can the Secretary of State reassure me that that support will continue over the long term, not just over the coming days and weeks? Also, will he urgently review the capacity we have in local government and our civic institutions to build on the work of community cohesion and education, so we can ensure that nothing as vile as the events we saw this weekend will ever happen again?

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Lady is right to say that in London, as in many other parts of the country, relations between the Jewish community and the Muslim community are generally good, and inter-faith dialogue is generally strong. We have seen that very prominently in recent months, for example, in tackling covid-19, where both religious communities have come forward, been incredibly supportive and have worked together. I have seen that myself on many occasions. She is also right to say that councils have an important part to play. I have asked Sara Khan, as part of her work, to provide recommendations to us on how we can provide better advice to local councils on how to spot and tackle extremism; which groups they should not be interfacing with; and, where they do find extremists in their communities, what action they can take to root it out. Extremists should not be able to operate with impunity in plain sight in any part of this country.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am now suspending the House for two minutes to enable necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19 Update

Matthew Hancock: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus. Since January last year, and especially since 8 December, when the world’s first clinically authorised coronavirus vaccine was given in Coventry Hospital, we have been engaged—all of us—in a race between the virus and the vaccine. As a nation, we have taken some huge strides forward and we can make careful further progress today, and we must remain vigilant.
I can report to the House that there are now fewer than 1,000 people in hospital in the United Kingdom with coronavirus, and the average number of daily deaths is now nine. This progress means we are able to take step 3 in our road map today, carefully easing some of the restrictions that we have all endured. People have missed the things that make life worth living, businesses have endured hardship and everybody has made sacrifices. While we can take this step today, we must be humble in the face of this virus. We have all learned over the past year that, in a pandemic, we must look not just at where we are today, but where the evidence shows we may be in weeks and months down the track. The vaccination programme can give us confidence, but we must be alert to new variants that could jeopardise the advances that we have made.
Today, I would like to update the House on the work we are doing to tackle variants of concern—in particular, variant B1617.2, which is the variant of concern first identified in India—so that we can protect the progress that we have worked so hard to achieve. There are now 2,323 confirmed cases of B1617.2 in the UK; 483 of these cases have been seen in Bolton and Blackburn with Darwen, where it is now the dominant strain. Cases there have doubled in the last week and are rising in all age groups. In Blackburn, hospitalisations are stable, with eight people currently in hospital with covid. In Bolton, 19 people are now in hospital with coronavirus, the majority of whom are eligible for a vaccine but have not yet had one. That shows that the new variant is not tending to penetrate into older vaccinated groups, and underlines again the importance of getting the jab—especially, but not only, among the vulnerable age groups.
In Bolton and Blackburn, we have taken the approach that worked in south London against the South African variant. We have surged in our rapid response team: 100 people so far, who visited approximately 35,000 people this weekend to distribute and collect tests. We have installed six new testing units, brought in more than 50 new vaccinators and set up two new vaccination centres, as well as extending opening hours and capacity at our existing sites. In Bolton, we have quadrupled the rate of vaccination. We carried out 6,200 vaccinations over this weekend, and it is brilliant to see so many people from the most vulnerable groups coming forward to get the protection, whether it is their first or second jab.
All in all, this is the biggest surge of resources into any specific local area that we have seen during the pandemic so far. It has been co-ordinated by Dr Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the new UK Health Security Agency, drawing on all the health capabilities, locally and nationally,  that we have built in the past year. I thank everyone who is working so hard to make it happen, including everyone at the two local authorities; the rapid response team; all the volunteers, including those from St John Ambulance; and, most importantly, the people of Bolton and Blackburn for the community spirit that they are showing.
It has been really heartening, as I am sure the whole House will agree, to see the videos published over the weekend of people queuing up to get the jab. I say to anyone who feels hesitant about getting the vaccine, not just in Bolton or Blackburn, but right across the country: just look at what is happening at the Royal Bolton Hospital. The majority of people in hospital with coronavirus were eligible for the jab but had chosen not yet to have it, and have ended up in hospital—some of them in intensive care. Vaccines save lives. They protect you, they protect your loved ones and they will help us all get out of this pandemic.
This is not just about Bolton and Blackburn. There are now 86 local authority areas where there are five or more confirmed cases. The next biggest case of concern is Bedford, where we are surging testing. I urge everybody in Bedford to exercise caution and engage in testing where it is available.
I also want to tell the House the latest scientific assessment of this variant. The early evidence suggests that B1617.2 is more transmissible than the previously dominant B1117 variant. We do not yet know to what extent it is more transmissible. While we do not have the complete picture of the impact of the vaccine, the early laboratory data from Oxford University corroborates the provisional evidence from the Royal Bolton Hospital and the initial observational data from India that vaccines are effective against the variant. This, of course, is reassuring, but the higher transmission poses a real risk.
All this supports our overriding strategy, which is gradually and cautiously to replace the restrictions on freedom with the protections from the vaccines. The data suggests that the vaccine has already saved more than 12,000 lives and prevented more than 33,000 people from being hospitalised, and we are protecting people at a very rapid pace. Last week was the biggest week of vaccinations since the end of March. Some 36 million people have now had a first dose, and yesterday we reached the milestone of 20 million people across the UK having had their second dose.
I am delighted to see the figures released by YouGov today, which show that the UK has the highest vaccination enthusiasm in the world, with 90% of people saying that they have had or will have the jab. This was no accident. We began planning the campaign for vaccine uptake a year ago. I thank the huge range of people involved in promoting the benefits of vaccination, from Her Majesty the Queen to Sir Elton John, Harry Redknapp, Lenny Henry, Holly Willoughby, Lydia West and many, many others. Our campaign has been based on positivity and science, and I am grateful to everybody who has played their part.
I can confirm that from tomorrow we will be inviting people aged 37 to come forward, before expanding this further later in the week. It has been brilliant to see people’s enthusiasm when they have been invited to come forward, and we want to make it as easy as possible for them to show that they have had the protection the vaccine   provides. I am delighted to say that, as of today, people can demonstrate whether they have had their jab, quickly and simply, through the NHS app.
Since January, we have been following a dosing interval of 12 weeks for second doses. Because of the extra protection people get from the second dose, particularly among those most likely to end up in hospital or dying, it is incredibly important that everyone comes forward for that second dose at the right moment. The approach we have taken aims to give the most vulnerable the strongest possible protection against this virus. Since January, that has meant getting the first dose to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. The research shows that this approach has saved about 12,000 lives.
Now, it is important to accelerate the second doses for all those most vulnerable to ending up in hospital or dying. Our vaccination strategy for all parts of the UK, including the areas of surge vaccination, will therefore stick by the clinical advice set out by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: first, prioritise anyone over 50 who has not yet been vaccinated; next, second doses to those over 50 are vital—that will now be done on a schedule of eight weeks; and, then, follow the cohorts in priority order, and the age groups as we open them. This clinically approved approach is the best way to save the most lives, rather than jumping ahead with first doses for younger people. Although the JCVI of course keeps this under constant review, we are clear that its advice is the best way to protect those most in need of protection and so save as many lives as we can. The NHS will be reiterating this advice to all vaccination centres and all directors of public health, and I am very grateful to everyone, in the NHS, local authorities and in the whole system supporting this vaccination programme, for following it.
Today’s opening and step 3 marks an important step on our road to our recovery. We must proceed with caution and care, and bear down on the virus, in whatever form it attacks us, so that in this race between the vaccine and the virus, our humanity, science, and ingenuity will prevail. I commend this statement to the House.

Jon Ashworth: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. May I start by congratulating the Leicester City football team on winning the FA cup on Saturday? The winning goal from Tielemans was one of dreams. Leicester City fans boast that Foxes never give up and nor do I, so let me turn to the matters before us.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State warned on the television that the B.1617.2 variant could “spread like wildfire” among the unvaccinated, but does he accept that we could have avoided this? Our borders have been about as secure as a sieve, and the delay in adding India to the red list surely now stands as a catastrophic mis-step. One month ago in this House, I urged him to act quickly in response to this variant. The Wellcome Sanger Institute data today shows a rapid increase in this variant, to 30% of all sequenced cases in the UK, and that excludes cases from travel and surge testing. Alarm bells should be ringing, because although the Secretary of State offers reassurance that vaccines are effective, we have also heard Professor Anthony Harnden of the JCVI recently warn us that vaccines are “almost certainly less effective” at reducing the transmission of this variant.
I entirely appreciate that when questioned I suspect that the Secretary of State will not be able to give a cast-iron assurance about opening up on 21 June, and I am not going to try to push him into a corner; we all understand that we are dealing with uncertainties and we have to be grown up about these things. But we do need a plan now to contain this variant urgently. He is said to be considering local lockdowns. As he knows, I speak as a resident of long locked-down Leicester. Before he takes out his mallet to try to whack moles again, may I suggest a number of things for him to try first?
First, will he consider surge vaccination in all hotspot areas and go hell for leather to roll out vaccinations to everyone? I listened very carefully to what he said about vaccination increases in Bolton, and I hope that also includes Blackburn. Is he saying that everyone over 18 in those areas will now be eligible for vaccination? As he knows, that is something that public health directors on the ground have been calling for, and I hope we listen to them.
We have had these debates in the House before, and the Secretary of State knows that even if we drive up vaccination as high as it can possibly go among adults, there are still about 20% of the wider population—children —who remain unvaccinated, which means the virus can still spread. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US are moving to vaccinate children. Will he update us on what progress he is making on that front here? On children, the Secretary of State knows that in many secondary schools, mask wearing is no longer necessary. Will he assure us that he thinks that is the right response in the light of the data he unveiled today?
Secondly, the Secretary of State has announced extra surge testing, but he knows by now that surge testing must be backed up by proper sick pay and decent isolation support. That should have been fixed in the Queen’s Speech last week.
Thirdly, more venues are opening up today. Many will be spending a lot of time disinfecting surfaces, like we do in here, which is good and important, but we know so much more about this virus now. We know about airborne spread of the virus, so why are we not supporting venues more with ventilation? What are we doing to help supermarkets, shopping centres and larger venues where air circulates around the building to put in place covid-secure air filtration systems?
Fourthly, what the Secretary of State said about the NHS and the uptake of beds is welcome, but NHS staff, as he knows, are exhausted and fear another surge. What modelling has been shared with NHS leaders, and what are they doing to prepare for any surge in admissions?
Finally, the surge in this variant reminds us that we are not safe until everyone is safe. That is not a slogan; it is a fact. Some 3.3 million lives have been lost globally to this virus, and Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus from the World Health Organisation warns that we are on track for the second year of this pandemic to be far more deadly than the first. Only 0.3% of vaccine supply is going to low-income countries. Trickle-down vaccination is not an effective strategy for fighting this deadly virus. Not only do we have a moral responsibility to play our part internationally, but that also reduces the risk of new variants bouncing back at us and setting us back.
At this critical time, when we need to work internationally to defeat this virus, why are we the only G7 nation cutting its aid budget? How can the Secretary of State defend cutting our contribution to vital science and research projects? Given the total silence from the Government on President Biden’s support for the temporary lifting of patent protections to increase vaccine production, should we assume that the Government do not agree with President Biden?

Matthew Hancock: Let me address the hon. Gentleman’s substantive questions. The first was about the surging of vaccines and testing into hotspots. We saw in south London earlier in the month and last month that that sort of surge testing can work. We had an outbreak of the South African variant in south London. We put in more than 200,000 tests, and we effectively managed to contain that outbreak. That is the approach that we are taking in Bolton and Blackburn, and we will also take that approach if we see a further spread in other areas of the country. We have been working very hard on that to ensure we have that capacity and can do that effectively. We do that, of course, hand in glove with the local authorities in question, which know the communities on the ground.
We are also making sure we have the vaccines available, but I want to be absolutely crystal clear about the approach to vaccination. The hon. Gentleman asked about vaccinating all over-18s in Bolton and Blackburn, but that is not our approach. I have looked into it in great detail, and we have taken clinical advice. The approach is to make sure that we get done as many second vaccinations as possible, as many first vaccinations as possible among the vulnerable groups, and then as many vaccinations as possible among those aged under 50 in the eligible groups. We have taken that approach because that is what is likely to save most lives. That second jab is vital. The first jab for anybody over 50 could mean the difference between life and death. The very strong focus is to get the vaccine to all those over 50 who have not yet taken the first jab. I am glad to say that reports from both Bolton and Blackburn suggest that uptake among people who are eligible, but who have not yet taken the jab, has increased since we saw the rise of the B1617.2 variant in those areas. It is effective in proving to people that the jab really does work to protect them. That is what the data shows.
The hon. Gentleman asked about children. I have been closely following the results of the clinical studies from Pfizer that show that the vaccine is safe and effective among children between the ages of 12 and 18. We have procured enough Pfizer to be able to offer that jab to children should that be clinically approved here, but given that we are at the stage of opening tomorrow to people aged 37, there is some time to go before we get to 18-year-olds. We are on track to meet the target of offering the vaccine to all those aged 18 and above by the end of July, so we have a couple of months before we need to make and operationalise a decision. We want to be very, very careful and sensitive about whether and how we offer the vaccine to children.
The hon. Gentleman asked about important wider measures. He mentioned ventilation. We have put in place guidance for businesses in terms of strengthening the rules around ventilation, and that, too, is important. He did a bit of a Captain Hindsight act on the Indian  variant. He did not seem to mention that we put India on the red list before this variant was even deemed a variant under investigation, let alone a variant of concern. Indeed, we put India on the red list before countries such as Germany and Canada stopped flights from India. We have a strong policy of restrictions at the border and we will remain vigilant.
The final point to which I wanted to respond was on the global moral responsibility to vaccinate everybody in the world. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have a global moral responsibility. I argue that, thus far, the United Kingdom has done, and will continue to do, more than any other nation. It is about not just the huge sums that we have put into COVAX, but the way that we delivered the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine around the world. As of this morning, 1.47 billion vaccines have been delivered globally, 400 million of which have been the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. AstraZeneca has charged a profit margin and a margin for intellectual property of zero—no charge for intellectual property, no profit for AstraZeneca. Costs, of course, need to be met, but we have taken nothing for the money that we put into the vaccine’s development. This is the biggest gift that this country could give to the world. A total of 65% of those 400 million doses have been delivered into the arms of people in low and middle-income countries, including more than 150 million in India. On the COVAX facility, which is the biggest global effort to vaccinate in low and middle-income countries, it has delivered 54 million vaccines so far, 53 million of which have been done with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
This country can be hugely proud of the contribution it has made. It is far bigger so far than that of any other country. We took the view from the start that we do not need to change our IP rules, we do not need to change the law, we just need to get on and get the vaccine out to as many people around the world as possible, at cost. Everybody in this House should be very, very proud of what AstraZeneca and Oxford University have done with the support of the UK Government. That is how we save lives around the world.

Jeremy Hunt: Many of the new variants come from abroad, so clarity on borders policy is essential. We now know that the first wave was largely seeded by people coming back from their spring holiday break in Italy, France and Spain, so will my right hon. Friend provide absolute clarity on the amber list? Should my constituents in Farnham, Godalming and Haslemere—indeed, all our constituents—go on holiday to countries on the amber list even when it is no longer illegal?

Matthew Hancock: The answer is no. The official Government advice is very clear that people should not travel to amber or red-list countries or territories. People should not travel to amber-list countries for a holiday. What is on the amber, red and green lists is kept under review, based on the data assessed by the Joint Biosecurity Centre. Our priority is protecting the progress we have made at home. We will assess whether any new countries might go on to the green list every three weeks and, of course, we constantly monitor to check that the countries on the green list remain safe. If a country is not on the green list, people should not travel there unless they have an exceptional reason.

Philippa Whitford: Covid cases in India began to soar at the start of April, so why were Pakistan and Bangladesh added to the red list at that time but not India? Was it because of the Prime Minister’s planned trade visit? After India was finally added to the red list on 19 April, the restrictions did not take effect until 23 April. How many people arrived from India in those days, trying to escape having to go into hotel quarantine? When I previously raised the issue of applying hotel quarantine to all travellers, the Secretary of State claimed that the current system was protecting the UK; does he now accept that the entry and community spread of the Indian variant shows that that simply is not the case and that having a negative test does not rule out the possibility that travellers are carrying covid?
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has stated that evidence shows that the B1617.2 Indian variant is up to 50% more infectious than the Kent variant and has advised that, as in Scotland, areas with rising numbers of cases should remain under covid restrictions. The Indian variant has been doubling every week despite lockdown, so why is the Secretary of State ignoring SAGE advice and opening up areas like Bolton that have exponential growth?
Thankfully, the Indian variant does not show significant vaccine resistance, but the Secretary of State must know that it is not possible to outrun the virus through vaccination alone. As those aged up to 35 are not eligible for surge vaccination, that leaves a large pool of unvaccinated people among whom the variant can spread. It will take two to three weeks before even those who receive a vaccine in the coming weeks are protected. Does the Secretary of State not accept that the variant is in danger of surging and that without local travel restrictions it will spread to other areas? It is good news that fully vaccinated people are not ending up in hospital, but just letting the virus spread among young adults could allow the evolution of yet another UK variant.

Matthew Hancock: I answered those questions in response to the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). The truth is that when we put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list, positivity among those arriving from those countries was three times higher than it was among those arriving from India. That is why we took those decisions and, of course, they were taken before the Indian variant became a variant under investigation, let alone a variant of concern. It is striking that the Scottish Government took the decision to put India on the red list at the same time as we in the UK Government did. It is all very well to ask questions with hindsight, but we have to base decisions and policy on the evidence at the time.
When it comes to how we are tackling the virus in the UK, the hon. Lady is quite right that it is good news—albeit early news—that the vaccines do appear to be effective against the B1617.2 variant. I am obviously pleased about the evidence we have seen but we are vigilant about that. I am glad that the approach we are now taking in Bolton and Blackburn worked against the South African variant in south London. We always keep these things under review, but I think that as a first resort, surge testing, going door to door, ensuring that we find and seek out the virus wherever we can spot it, and putting in the extra resources with the armed services who are  supporting us, are the right approaches while we keep this under review. The numbers thus far nationally are still relatively low and, thankfully, we have a very good surveillance operation across the UK so that we can spot these things early and take the action that we need to.

Greg Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Sir Patrick Vallance, who told my Committee that new variants will arise all the time and that border restrictions will only slow, not prevent, those variants that originate overseas? What level of vaccination protection do we need to get to in this country before my right hon. Friend is in a position to rescind the rather strange advice that he has just given to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) and allow people who have been tested three times and quarantined for 10 days to travel to places such as France and Spain?

Matthew Hancock: Typically my right hon. Friend asks the most pertinent question, to which we do not know the answer. The level of vaccination that we need in order to withstand the incursion of new variants, even those that the vaccine will work against, depends on their level of transmissibility, and we do not know the increased level of transmissibility over and above that of B117, the previous main variant here in the UK, which was first discovered in Kent. This is an absolutely critical question, but unfortunately we do not know the answer to it yet.

Munira Wilson: Having reached this tremendous milestone today, and given the sacrifices that the British people have made through lockdown and the fantastic successes of the vaccination programme, will the Secretary of State listen to his own colleague, the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who said last week that, with the new variant, we must “isolate, isolate, isolate” every single case and its contacts? Will he finally commit to paying people’s wages to stay at home to self-isolate, and provide practical support in terms of accommodation and support for dependants if necessary? Otherwise, we will only go backwards.

Matthew Hancock: I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the situation, not least because the approach we are taking in Bolton did work effectively in south London. We are piloting new approaches to ensuring that we can support people to isolate, and some of those pilots are taking place in areas where we can see cases of B1617.2. We keep this under close scrutiny and review to see what works effectively.

David Johnston: Part of our fight against covid, and indeed against future viruses, is to improve our domestic vaccine manufacturing capability. To that end, the Government are fast-tracking the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre at Harwell in my constituency. I will be visiting it in a few weeks, but could my right hon. Friend provide an update on the progress so far?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, we are making significant progress with the onshoring of vaccine capability. It is about developing the vaccine, as the team in Oxford did brilliantly, but also about manufacturing it onshore,  and boy, if there is one lesson we have learned from this whole thing, it is that we cannot just not care about where manufacturing happens. Having it onshore really, really matters, for resilience but also to ensure that it is close to the NHS so that the whole supply chain can learn and constantly improve. I am delighted that we are pushing forward with the VMIC project in the same way that we have brought onshore manufacturing supply in Teesside, in Livingston in Scotland and in the fill-and-finish plants at Wockhardt in Wrexham, at Barnard Castle and elsewhere. It is a big project and, frankly, a big opportunity for life sciences in the UK to ensure that we can do all this onshore, because in my view, the pandemic has shown that we need to.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his comprehensive answers. I know that he has regular discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly Health Minister, Robin Swann. There has been a surge in the Indian variant in Donegal in the Republic of Ireland and in the maiden city of Londonderry in Northern Ireland. Can the Northern Ireland Assembly Health Minister call upon the UK for expertise from Westminster to assist us, which I believe will show once again that we are always better together with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Matthew Hancock: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The UK fights this together. There are outbreaks also in Moray and in Glasgow, and I have been talking to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health about the action that is going on to tackle the outbreaks there. I talk frequently with Robin Swann, who is doing an absolutely brilliant job with the Health portfolio in Northern Ireland. The fundamental point is that the benefits of the United Kingdom working together are once more demonstrated by our ability to work together to tackle this variant.

Jamie Wallis: More than 20 million people have now received their second dose of the vaccine, an achievement that demonstrates the phenomenal pace at which we are delivering vaccine across the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this incredible milestone demonstrates what our Union can achieve when we work together?

Matthew Hancock: I have just waxed lyrical about the value of Scotland working with the UK Government and of Northern Ireland working with the UK Government, and my hon. Friend almost chastises me for not mentioning Wales. Of course working with Wales is incredibly important—look at the Wockhardt fill-finish plant. The number of people who have been vaccinated in this country with a product that is manufactured in Wales measures in the tens of millions, including me. We should all be very proud of that, and I look forward to working with my new Welsh counterpart, the Minister for Health in Wales, and making sure that we use all capabilities across these islands to get us back on the road to recovery.

Liz Twist: Today sees the long-anticipated lifting of many of the restrictions on our life and social life. At the same time, this strain of the virus reminds us that we need to be cautious in how we mix  and how we hug our loved ones. It is important that we have clear messages about interaction, so will the Secretary of State ensure that Government messages are clear, unambiguous and not mixed, as at present?

Matthew Hancock: It is really clear that we are removing restrictions. I am delighted that we are able to remove restrictions, such as the absolute restrictions on close physical contact, and rely more on people’s personal responsibility. In order to do that, we are providing the best possible advice that we can, such as to hug, but cautiously. Everybody knows what that means: it means outside is better than inside, it means making sure it is in ventilated spaces and it means that those who have had the vaccine, and in particular two vaccines, are safer than those who have not.
It is incumbent on us all to communicate these messages from our scientists and to make sure that people understand them. I am pretty sure that the British public get that. Given how brilliantly people have responded to requests during the pandemic, I am highly confident that this approach will be successful and that people will be cautious, but enjoy the new freedoms that we are thankfully able to give.

Mark Harper: I listened very carefully to what the Secretary of State said in his statement about people being able to prove that they have had the vaccination through the NHS app. I also listened carefully to what he said about the importance of the Union. Can I just draw to his attention something that I hope he can look at urgently? I have thousands of constituents who live in England, but who are registered with GPs in Wales and who receive their vaccinations in Wales. At the moment, it is not proving possible for them to register with the NHS app that they have had their vaccination. Can I ask him to urgently fix that for my constituents and those across our United Kingdom?

Matthew Hancock: This is another example of where we work better together as one United Kingdom; we are working to solve this problem precisely. Coming from the borders with Wales, I understand this very clearly. Work is under way to ensure that there is interoperability between the data systems in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This situation was not foreseen when health responsibilities were devolved. I have been working with my counterparts in the three devolved nations on fixing it, and we have agreed to fix it. Getting these data to talk to each other is technically complicated, but that work is under way.

Paul Blomfield: In their decisions on easing the lockdown, the Government have rightly emphasised the importance of being driven by data, but when Pakistan and Bangladesh were added to the red list, the data showed that daily infection rates were substantially higher in India. Will the Secretary of State admit that the decision not to put India on the red list at that time was influenced by the Prime Minister’s imminent visit to Delhi and the desire to secure a trade deal? Does he now recognise that that was a mistake?

Matthew Hancock: If I just explain the data to the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will understand. The measures of the case rate per 100,000 are influenced by the amount of testing that is done in any country, and there is not  nearly as much testing in Pakistan or Bangladesh as there is in India. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), the rate of positivity of people coming from Pakistan was three times higher than that of people coming from India, which was at that time quite low. We have to be careful with the raw data, and we have to look at the underlying positivity. One of the advantages of testing everybody at the border is that we now effectively have a global surveillance system to understand the positivity of travellers from any individual country. As I said, the decision was taken on the basis of the fact that the positivity was three times higher from Pakistan than from India.

Mark Logan: In Bolton we are battling the Indian variant, with the rate currently standing at 274 per 100,000. The heroes of Bolton jabbed 6,200 people this weekend. Well done to the Health Secretary and his Department. Will he pay tribute to the Bolton team—Councillors Greenhalgh, Baines and Morgan, Dr Lowey and Dr Wall? Will the Government commit to first-dosing the whole of Bolton before the end of May and getting the second dose out to more vulnerable groups at a similar pace? Finally, what would the Health Secretary like to stress to Boltonians as we open up today with the rest of the country?

Matthew Hancock: There is one other person who my hon. Friend did not add to the list, probably due to modesty, and that is himself. He has worked incredibly hard over the last few days to get the message out to people across Bolton, and I am very grateful. My message to everybody in Bolton and Blackburn is: take these steps, but please take them safely. Get a test and get yourself vaccinated as soon as you are in one of the eligible groups. It is incredibly important that we get vaccinations to anybody over 50 who has not had a jab yet, so please come forward now. Anybody over 50 who has had one jab eight weeks ago or more should come forward for their second. Crucially, get a test.
I pay tribute to all those my hon. Friend mentioned. Councillor David Greenhalgh, the leader of Bolton Council, has worked incredibly hard, as have his whole team. We are working cohesively together, and I very much hope that with that effort, we can get this sorted.

Matt Western: Obviously vaccines are important, but so is testing. Six months ago to the day, the Health Secretary told us that the UK would open two new mega laboratories in early 2021 to double the country’s capacity for carrying out covid-19 tests. We were then advised that they would open in early spring. The one in Scotland was cancelled. The one here in Leamington remains surrounded in secrecy, non-disclosure agreements and private contracts for staff employed by private companies, some linked to Conservative donors. The Health Secretary will be concerned by the delay, I am sure, even if he does not have a financial concern in this project himself. Can he tell us what is going on, and can he confirm when the place will open and that staff will be employed directly by the NHS?

Matthew Hancock: We have a PCR testing capacity in this country of many hundreds of thousands more than we use each day. The Leamington Spa project is incredibly  important and the people working there are doing a magnificent job. Frankly, I do not think that the rest of the hon. Gentleman’s question deserves an answer.

James Cartlidge: I strongly share my right hon. Friend’s sentiment, which he expressed earlier, about his pride in the role that the United Kingdom has played in the global vaccine effort, through the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. Of course, the Indian variant shows that we remain vulnerable while the virus is rampant abroad, so what further steps can we take in the global fight against covid?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point that we cannot stress enough. We all, especially developed countries, have a role to play in making sure that we get the vaccines around the world. The UK approach is focused on outcomes and on getting as many people as possible vaccinated globally. The best way to do that is to allow the work that we have done here—the research and the proving of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine—to be replicated and manufactured everywhere at cost. That is a better approach because it protects future intellectual property values and allows for the research money to go into new vaccines and variant vaccines. It does not undermine the system of intellectual property, which is the underpinning concept of all pharmaceutical development, yet at the same time it makes sure that we get people vaccinated around the world. This country should be incredibly proud that we have helped vaccinate over 400 million people, with many hundreds of millions more to come.

Tonia Antoniazzi: On Saturday, my friends and I put on our trainers and walked 26 miles in Gower to raise a bucketload of cash for the fantastic breast cancer charity Walk the Walk. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I know only too well the devastating impact that the pandemic has had on cancer services. One of the key ways in which the Secretary of State can help with the Government’s goals to recover from the pandemic is by ensuring that we have enough well-trained and motivated NHS staff now and into the future. What discussions has he had with the Treasury to ensure a comprehensive, multi-year funding settlement for the NHS in the autumn spending review? Will he meet me and Macmillan Cancer Support to discuss this urgent matter?

Matthew Hancock: I am always very happy to meet the hon. Lady, who works incredibly hard on this topic. I am delighted to say that the recovery of cancer services is going well and that in many of the centres, the rate of diagnosis, testing and surgery is above 100% of 2019 levels. That is very important. Of course, we are working towards the spending review. The NHS has a long-term baseline settlement, but on top of that we are putting extra money into the recovery that she rightly champions. I would be delighted to talk to her more about it.

Richard Graham: The message today is all about the balance between celebrating the return of more freedoms today and in the future, and the need for caution, depending on the good sense of my constituents in Gloucester and those elsewhere. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how many of those recently  hospitalised in Bolton as a result of the new variant had already been vaccinated; what more we can do to help spread the word to those who have not yet agreed to be vaccinated; and what role he expects pharmacies to play in testing as we go forward?

Matthew Hancock: The best understanding that we have is that five of the 18 who were in hospital yesterday had been vaccinated once, and one had been vaccinated twice but it is not clear how recently. Therefore, the majority have not been vaccinated, but most of them could have been vaccinated. That is frustrating to see, but it is also a message to everyone. We monitor this closely and the latest information on those who have been admitted to hospital in Bolton over the weekend is similar: the majority are unvaccinated. It reinforces the message that people should come forward and get vaccinated, because that is best way to protect everybody.

Rachael Maskell: Before Christmas, it was the mutation—the Kent variant—mixed with the opening of the economy in York that caused a rapid spike of covid-19 infection, as people came to visit our city en masse and spread the virus through the hospitality sector, where still many workers are yet to be vaccinated. Here we are again, and who knows what will come next? A different variant—the Indian variant—with high transmissibility is about to be spread in a city that many people are already visiting, with more to come. We feel vulnerable. What proactive, preventive steps will the Secretary of State take so that we do not pay that heavy price again for the Government not acting fast enough?

Matthew Hancock: The most important difference between now and then is, of course, that the vast majority of those who are vulnerable to ending up in hospital or dying of covid have had two vaccines. The vaccination uptake rates have been spectacularly high and the uptake rate of the second vaccine has also been incredibly high. That means that the protection afforded to those who have chosen to take up the vaccine is very high. The latest estimates show that having two jabs and waiting a fortnight or so after the second jab leads to around a 97% reduction in mortality. Of course, we will continue to drive and to open up access in order to find the final few per cent. of people, but the lesson of the last few days is that people who have not taken up the opportunity to be vaccinated should do so, because it is those people who have sadly ended up in hospital, and we do not want that.

William Wragg: The Health Secretary can be proud of his role in the vaccination programme, and I welcome the further reduction in the age of eligibility. It may surprise my right hon. Friend, and indeed the House, that despite my appearance and general manner, there are still a few years yet to go, but I will be there, seized of the importance of taking up my vaccine. May I urge him to favour a surge in vaccination, rather than to flirt even momentarily with the idea of imposing local restrictions, which are not helpful and create a great deal of resentment?

Matthew Hancock: I am glad to say that we will get to my hon. Friend before the end of July, no matter how young he is. I am pretty sure he is an adult in both actuality and attitude—crikey, I am getting myself into more trouble than I anticipated.
I understand my hon. Friend’s broader point, which is a call against local lockdowns, and we have had differences of view on that in the past. It is not where we want to go, though of course we do not rule it out. We have seen our approach work—it worked in south London —and we have this huge testing capacity, which we did not have in the autumn, of hundreds of thousands of tests a day. That capacity is expanding, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) articulated. We also have millions of lateral flow tests, which are simple and easy to use, and people get the result fast. With surge testing plus the vaccine, we have many more tools in our armoury than we did before.

Peter Grant: I am very grateful in advance to the NHS Fife staff who will give me my second dose of the vaccine exactly 10 weeks to the day after my first one.
The Secretary of State indicated that probably a significant factor in the spread of the highly transmissible new variant is that people who could have been vaccinated by now chose, for whatever reason, not to accept the vaccine. In a number of cases, people have genuine concerns, but a major issue must be that people are declining the vaccine because they believe the lies deliberately and maliciously spread by anti-vax campaigners on social media. What further action do the Government wish to take against those who deliberately spread those lies for no other purpose than to put the lives of others at risk?

Matthew Hancock: The anti-vaxxers have not had a very good time of it recently, and I am absolutely delighted that take-up is as high as it is. One of the reasons we have been able to take on the anti-vaxxers so effectively is that we have not danced to their tune. Instead, Members right across the House—I am looking around now and I see people in all parts of the House who have played their part in this—have put across the positive, science-based, objective, enlightenment values, if you like, of why the vaccine is the right thing. We as a House, as leaders of our national debate, have done that with one voice, based on the scientific advice. We have done it across the four nations of the United Kingdom with one voice. We have done it with scientists, with clinicians, with religious leaders—with all those who have a strong voice in this debate. Telling the positive story is the vital thing that we can do. Of course there may be those who do otherwise, but that is not for us—it is for us to tell the positive story.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for playing his part in that by celebrating having his second jab. I am thrilled that he will have, in just a couple of weeks’ time, the maximum protection that one can get. He is helping not only himself and his loved ones, but all of us together to get through this.

Huw Merriman: I was going to ask the Secretary of State to confirm whether, for those vaccinated, there is effectiveness against the B16172 variant, and how many deaths in the UK from that strain have been recorded among the vaccinated. However, given that he has just effectively turned the amber list red, can I ask him what is the point of me having my passport anymore? Covid will always mutate and the vaccine will always have to keep up. We have managed to vaccinate 99% of the mortality risk cohort. When will this Government actually take a little bit of risk and allow people to get on with their lives again?

Matthew Hancock: The red, amber and green lists reflect the risks that there are in other places around the world. The amber list means that people need to quarantine at home, the red list means that they need to quarantine in a hotel, and the green list means that we think it is safe to travel. My hon. Friend should get his passport out—he can get on a plane to Portugal or one of the other countries. The system allows for some careful foreign travel. However, my first duty is to protect the lives of people here in the UK, and the best way to do that right now is to make sure that we are cautious on international travel to protect the opening up here at home.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: The Secretary of State will know that analysis of the data published by Public Health England shows that the spike in cases in Bolton so far is mostly confined to schoolchildren and young adults who are socially mobile and have not yet been vaccinated. There are valid concerns, therefore, that as lockdown eases today, it might lead to a rise in cases within unvaccinated cohorts across Salford, which borders Bolton. Can he confirm that he will act now to protect people in Salford by curbing any spread beyond surge hotspots and accelerating the vaccine roll-out programme in Salford not just for second doses, but for first doses for young, unvaccinated cohorts?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, we are opening up vaccinations for those aged 37 tomorrow, and anybody in Salford who is in one of the eligible groups and has not been vaccinated should come forward. If you are in Salford and you were vaccinated more than eight weeks ago but have not yet had your second jab, please come forward. We now have a very good surveillance system in this country and we publish all the data from it so that we can all see the cases day by day. We can also see the impact on hospitalisations. I am glad to say that, thankfully, the almost inexorable link from cases through to hospitalisation and death that we saw in the past is now broken. The link is not completely severed, but it is much, much weaker because of the protection of the vaccine. Those are the things that people can do in Salford, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady to get those messages out to everybody.

Sara Britcliffe: The Secretary of State will know that my constituency of Hyndburn and Haslingden borders Blackburn with Darwen, and I thank the Department for having listened to colleagues’ call for extra support and resources through additional vaccines and surge testing. On a call this morning, Amanda Doyle, the integrated care system lead for Lancashire and South Cumbria, told us that one of the main concerns today is not a shortage of supply but the uptake of vaccines, so will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging residents across Lancashire to come forward for their jab when eligible, and reiterate how important this is in protecting our local communities?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, 100%. Just like people across Salford and Greater Manchester, people across Lancashire should come forward to get the jab if they are eligible. In some areas, such as parts of Bolton, we are going door to door with the jab; in the wider area, we are saying to people, “Come forward and get your jab. That is the best protection you can have.” Twice-weekly testing is also available to everybody now, so people should come  forward and get their tests. The more regularly they get tested, the more they can help break the chains of transmission, and when they get their chance, they should get the jab.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Thanks to the Prime Minister’s delaying travel restrictions, an estimated 20,000 people arrived in the UK from India before restrictions were put in place. Can the Secretary of State inform the House how many of those arrivals were covid positive and were subsequently quarantined, and if not, why not?

Matthew Hancock: We publish that data, so I refer the hon. Lady to the gov.uk website.

Theresa Villiers: The vaccination programme is one of the biggest and most successful civilian logistical exercises in our country’s history, and I thank the Secretary of State for his role in delivering it. It should open the way for our hospitality businesses to start operating at full capacity in due course, and for events, festivals and conferences to start, but there is still a lot of uncertainty about when this will happen. Will the Secretary of State publish a plan so that those two crucial sectors of our economy can reopen? It may take a while, but they need a plan and a timetable.

Matthew Hancock: We are working on a plan for that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and of course on the social distancing review that the Prime Minister is leading on. We are committed to making sure that we publish that well in advance of the decision on 14 June as to what the data show about step 4, which is currently planned for 21 June. Of course, we have set out four parameters for taking that step on 21 June, and the first three are currently in good shape. The challenge is the new variant, but it is far too early to be able to say anything about that specifically. We will look at the data up to 14 June and make an announcement on that date.

Margaret Greenwood: Covid restrictions are easing, but almost 5 million people are waiting to start NHS treatment, so now is not the time for a major reorganisation of the national health service. However, the Government’s plans for the future of the NHS and social care would embed a postcode lottery, allow for the deregulation of NHS professions and allow the discharge of vulnerable patients from hospital before they have been assessed for continuing healthcare. Public consultation on this has been woefully inadequate, so will the Secretary of State pause the entire process until after all covid restrictions have been lifted, and then carry out a full public consultation so that patients, NHS staff, care workers and unpaid carers can have their say?

Matthew Hancock: On the contrary, the proposed reforms set out in the White Paper, which have come from the NHS itself, will help to deal with the backlog. They will help to make sure that the NHS is ready for the rest of the 21st century. They have been welcomed by the Health and Social Care Committee, and I am grateful to that Committee for its report last week, which welcomed those reforms while asking for further detail on a couple of other areas, which we will work with the Committee on.
I urge the hon. Lady to speak to her colleagues in the local NHS, and ask them whether they think that collaboration is the way forward; whether we should have greater interoperability; and whether we should have greater integration on the ground, and get rid of a load of the bureaucracy that is currently there in law. If she is not persuaded by her local NHS, by me or by the Select Committee, perhaps she should speak to her own Front Benchers, who also welcomed the reforms.

Robert Largan: As of last week, over 82,000 doses of the covid vaccine have been administered across the High Peak. It is an amazing achievement and I put on my record my thanks again to everyone who has made that possible. I urge the Health Secretary to focus on doing surge vaccinations and surge testing in those areas with growing numbers of new cases to put us in the best possible position, so that we can get rid of any remaining restrictions as soon as possible.

Matthew Hancock: Yes, this is our planned approach. I am glad to say that the number of cases across the High Peak is very, very low. I am also glad to see that the vaccination rates across the whole of Derbyshire are really high—I was in Derbyshire just before the elections, and the rates are high and there is huge enthusiasm behind the project. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in making sure that that is what has happened.

Caroline Lucas: Given that the so-called Indian variant is now a variant of concern and is linked to several outbreaks in schools, why have the Government just abandoned the requirement to wear face masks in secondary school classrooms? The Secretary of State is fond of claiming that he is following the science, but this flies in the face of scientific advice from SAGE, public health experts and teaching unions. It begs the question as to why he is getting rid of one of the few mitigation measures in schools that we know actually works when we have such a transmissible variant. No one wants to see face masks in schools for longer than necessary, but neither do they want children to lose out on face-to-face education because of virus outbreaks. Once community rates go up, school rates go up, so why is he needlessly putting education at risk?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady kind of answered the question in the question, when she said that everybody wants to see face-to-face education. The thing is that in a classroom setting, being able to see somebody’s face does have a material impact and, therefore, we do not want to have face coverings in school settings for longer than they are necessary, but we are prepared to have them in place where they are necessary. There is discretion for local directors of public health where there are significant challenges. It is something that we discussed, for instance, with the director of public health in Bolton and in Blackburn. That has been part of the discussions over the last few days. What the hon. Lady is asking for is a blanket approach, including in areas where the number of cases is incredibly low. The decision that we have taken, on balance—taking into account the education risks and the advice from SAGE and public health experts—

Caroline Lucas: indicated dissent.

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady shakes her head. We listen to the scientists and, crucially, balance both the public health advice and the impact on education. Therefore, we have a more localised approach, without the blanket approach that she recommends.

Rob Butler: Today’s measures are very welcome in Aylesbury, with local pubs, restaurants, the museum and the cinema all eager to welcome back customers. Will my right hon. Friend reassure local residents that, as business and culture return to normality, so too will our health services, and that, over time, it will become easier once again to have face-to-face appointments with GPs?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the letter sent out from Dr Nikki Kanani, who is the medical director of primary care for NHS England, reiterating the point that it is important to offer a face-to-face consultation for a patient who really wants one while also using technology where that is the most clinically appropriate thing to do. These decisions should be taken between doctor and patient together. There is no greater supporter than me of the use of technology in healthcare. I think it improves access no end. People do need to be able to go to the surgery if they so choose and see the right person—the clinically appropriate person. That is the approach that we are taking while making sure that we can use a system that allows people to access the right services in the right settings as much as possible.

Yvette Cooper: People will understandably feel angry that all the progress that everyone has worked so hard for by supporting the vaccines and following restrictions is now being slowed or potentially put at risk because the Government’s border measures have failed to prevent the spread of a new variant. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether it is true, as reported, that even by 7 April, 5% of people arriving from India had covid, apparently 50 times higher than the rate here; what that figure had risen to by 19 April; and how many of the 2,323 already identified new variant cases are people who travelled directly from India, and how many are people who caught it through onward transmission that was not prevented by the border measures?

Matthew Hancock: As I said, the positivity rate for people travelling from India was relatively low at the start of April. We published the data of the positivity rates from the managed quarantine service. However, by the end of April, the positivity rate from India had risen, so we took the precautionary decision, even before this variant was deemed a variant under investigation, to put India on the red list. We did that before other similar countries, such as Germany and Canada, banned their flights. I understand the enthusiasm of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for pursuing this line of questioning, but we have to take decisions based on the evidence; we cannot take decisions based on evidence that arrives afterwards, which is what she seems to think we should have done.

Jacob Young: More than 70,000 people in Redcar and Cleveland have now had at least one jab, which is an amazing achievement so far. It is great to  hear that the vaccines seem to be protecting against the Indian variant too. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Novavax vaccine, which is made in Teesside, will also be tested against the Indian variant and other variants of concern, and will he update us on when it will be made available as another great Teesside export?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, Teesside is playing it part. In fact, earlier today I met Ben Houchen, the newly re-elected Mayor of Teesside, to talk about what more we can do to invest in Teesside—in the NHS in Teesside, and in life sciences, such as vaccine production, on Teesside. He is doing a fantastic job of taking the voice of Teesside right into the heart of Whitehall—as is my hon. Friend, of course.
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this point about the Novavax vaccine, which is going to be manufactured on Teesside. Of course, we will study its impact against the new variants, but we have a high degree of confidence that the Novavax vaccine has a broad coverage. In fact, one of its attractions is that it has that broad coverage, not just against the variant that it was precisely designed to deal with but against a wide range of variants. That is part of the theory of the technology that underpins that particular vaccine. It is a very modern vaccine, it is very exciting, and it is terrific that it is being made on Teesside.

Navendu Mishra: We are not safe until everyone is safe. Following President Biden’s announcement that the US Government will support an intellectual property waiver to help scale up the volume of safe and effective covid-19 vaccines globally, can the Secretary of State explain why the British Government are still blocking the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—TRIPS—waiver at the World Trade Organisation?

Matthew Hancock: Because we have a better approach. Our UK approach has led to the vaccination of 400 million people. The hon. Gentleman should take enormous pride in that. We have been able to do that while protecting the intellectual property rights that will lead to the development, for instance, of the new vaccines, the new technologies and the variant vaccines that are going to be necessary in the future. It is that combination of the protection of intellectual property rights plus the giving away of this vaccine at cost to the developing world—to lower and middle-income countries.
I reiterate the point I made earlier, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will take pride in: of the 54 million vaccine doses delivered through the COVAX facility, of which we are a major funder, 53 million have been of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, delivered with no charge for the intellectual property. That is the approach we should be taking. That is what we will do, and I urge everybody around the world to follow.

Nigel Evans: I do aim to try to take everybody, so can we have concise questions—and concise answers, Secretary of State?

Bob Blackman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that London has a younger cohort and is full of communities from across the world, but many are hesitant because of the activities of pharmaceutical companies in the countries of their origin.  Will he look at aspects of control to ensure that those communities can get the vaccine they choose to take, rather than attempting to force them to take vaccines they are extremely reluctant to take?

Matthew Hancock: We have had a principle of saying that they come forward for the vaccine and get the vaccine that is there on the day, but of course we have nuanced that because of the changes in the clinical advice on the AstraZeneca vaccine. As we reach further and further into those who need encouragement to come forward, so we are willing to look at more and more creative solutions to tackle people’s hesitancy. As it happens, I was in Brent central mosque last week at Eid. It was absolutely wonderful to see the work they have done to make sure that people of all faiths and none can come forward. For many Muslim people it means that in Brent they can go forward to somewhere where they are very comfortable being vaccinated. It was brilliant, frankly, to see teams working in the mosque to vaccinate people of all backgrounds. The imam was vaccinated by someone with the support of a member of the Jewish community with me looking on, all organised by a Hindu administrator. It was modern Britain at its best. They have done thousands of vaccines and they have done great work. I know it is that sort of approach that my hon. Friend is looking for. If we can do more on the specifics of which vaccine, I am very happy to look at that. [Interruption.]

Nigel Evans: I think we have just heard the skies opening above us. I am grateful we can now eat inside restaurants.

Emma Hardy: Hull Royal Infirmary is a tower block and the geography of the building has resulted in a higher number of covid transmissions in hospital, despite the excellent work being done by all NHS staff. I fear that covid cases caught in hospital will only increase with a more transmissible strain of the virus. Will the Secretary of State look urgently at providing Hull Royal Infirmary with the funding it needs to improve its building as we all learn to live with the virus?

Matthew Hancock: As the hon. Lady knows, we are building 48 new hospitals over this decade. Forty of those have been set out, but there are a further eight slots, so she may want to work with Hull Royal Infirmary to bring forward a proposal. Of course, tackling infection within hospital is incredibly important work and always has been since the time of Florence Nightingale. It is even more important right now and I think it will be a higher priority over the years ahead. I am always very happy to look at all proposals.

Kate Griffiths: Today’s relaxation of restrictions is so welcome for all those who work in the hospitality industry. Pubs, restaurants and leisure facilities are all making huge changes to operations to welcome back customers, while also ensuring they keep everyone safe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should support those local businesses, while ensuring that we play our part in abiding by the safety measures and exercising caution as we gradually return to a normal way of life?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course. My hon. Friend puts it very wisely. As the Member of Parliament for Burton, which is famous for its beer and its pubs, she no doubt speaks for her whole constituency when she says that she welcomes the measures we are taking and the steps we are able to take today. People should take those steps with caution. Outside remains better than inside. It is harder in the rain, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is still better to be outside if you can. Putting more down to personal responsibility is the right approach at this stage, with the low level of virus and the huge scope of the vaccination project. I am very grateful to her for her support in pushing that agenda.

David Linden: The Secretary of State will be aware that in Glasgow we have seen an increase in the virus due to the so-called Indian variant. That means that although everybody in this House is celebrating the return to indoor hospitality, many Glaswegians have not been able to experience it today, which we bitterly regret.
Up until 6 o’clock yesterday, flights were still coming into the UK from India, and 20,000 people have arrived in the UK since the alarm was raised about that variant. Does the Secretary of State really want to look Glaswegians in the eye and say that that was decisive action that has led to their staying in tier 3?

Matthew Hancock: The history as the hon. Gentleman describes it is, in fact, wrong. We put India on the red list and therefore required hotel quarantine before the variant was designated even as under investigation, let alone as a variant of concern. So yes, we did take pre-emptive action. Anybody arriving now who has been in India in the past 10 days must go to a hotel to quarantine.

Scott Benton: Although the incredible success of our world-leading vaccination programme has reduced the number of people in hospital with covid substantially, thereby relieving much of the pressure on the NHS, many of my constituents are still waiting longer for non-urgent NHS care. I am delighted that Blackpool Victoria Hospital is included in the pilot project looking at innovative ways to deliver services and reduce the backlog. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that it will get all the resources it needs to remove the backlog as quickly as it possibly can?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. Blackpool Victoria is a fantastic hospital and the team there has worked incredibly hard, especially over the past year and a half. I am delighted that it is part of the plan to work out how we can go even faster to get not just to the baseline 100% levels of activity in the equivalent month in 2019, but far higher than that, because we have to get through the backlog. The backlog is not just those who are currently on the waiting list, although too many are waiting more than a year and the waiting list is too long; there are also people who have not yet presented, but who we know are likely to have a problem. This is a huge challenge and I am very grateful to colleagues in Blackpool, who are working so hard not just to get through the backlog, but learn how best to get through it so that others can learn from them.

Andrew Murrison: The staggering success of the covid vaccination programme means that on current trends, sadly, non-covid viruses may well kill more people this winter than the coronavirus. Is my right hon. Friend confident that an effective flu jab will be available to address this year’s emergent strains of flu? What will he do to maximise uptake of the flu vaccine by vulnerable groups? What is the latest on a covid booster dose this autumn? Would the flu jab be given at the same time?

Matthew Hancock: My right hon. Friend is quite right to ask all those questions. In fact, I met Simon Stevens and the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment about the matter this morning, because we want to ensure that the flu vaccine programme this winter is a success. We had the biggest flu vaccination programme in history last winter. We are currently trialling the co-administration of flu and covid vaccines—I am waving my hands because one goes in each arm. We are looking at that for the autumn as part of a booster programme for covid. A lot of work is under way in this space; I suggest that my right hon. Friend discusses it with the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, who is now responsible both for the covid programme and for the flu programme, in order to better tie them together.

Clive Efford: I heard what the Secretary of State had to say about testing rates in Pakistan and Bangladesh, but according to Johns Hopkins University, the daily infection rate in Pakistan back in April was 4,500; in Bangladesh it was 7,000 and in India it was 100,000. Surely, if he were taking a precautionary approach, he should have placed India on the red list much sooner.

Matthew Hancock: No. The statistic that is missing from that analysis, which was also missing from that of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), is the amount of testing that is done in each country. We have to look at the positivity when an appropriate selected sample is tested. It is not possible to do that in many low and middle-income countries, so the best way is to look at the positivity rate of people who are travelling to the UK, because we test everybody. That is the most statistically appropriate way to assess the question that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) rightly tries to assess, and it showed that positivity rates were three times higher in India.

Nigel Evans: The time limit in the Queen’s Speech debate following this statement will start at five minutes, but I am sure it will go down thereafter.

Tobias Ellwood: I look forward to welcoming my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he visits the vaccination hub in Bournemouth. Today’s partial liberation of covid restrictions will be welcome up and down the country, and not least in Bournemouth where hospitality and tourism are so important, but the development of yet another mutation in the Indian variant illustrates that until this pandemic is brought under control globally, other more deadly mutations may develop. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a shared global adversary? Will it be raised at the G7 summit, and when does he think our spare vaccine capacity can start to be directed abroad?

Matthew Hancock: My right hon. Friend is right to praise the incredible efforts in Bournemouth, which I know he has played a very direct and personal part in delivering, and I look forward very much to visiting as soon as I can get down there—and, by the way, I agree with Sir John Bell that Bournemouth is a great place to go on holiday and I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees about that too.
On global support, of course as and when we have excess doses we will look to support countries around the world with those doses, but the number of doses that we can support around the world from our excess purchases is small compared with the spectacular support we have already given the whole world with the more than 400 million doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine that have been delivered at cost. The majority of Oxford-AstraZeneca doses have been injected in low and middle-income countries, and 98% of all COVAX jabs given so far have been that vaccine delivered on the back of British science, supported by the UK Government, Oxford university and AstraZeneca, doing this all without taking a profit. We should be very proud of that.

Debbie Abrahams: The wider the gap between the rich and poor, the bigger the difference in our life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. That has been laid bare over the last year: the UK’s high and unequal covid death toll has been driven by the rampant poverty and inequality that successive Conservative Governments have allowed to go unchecked. In January, the Prime Minister promised to implement Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s recommendations to address that and to build back fairer, so what discussions has the Health Secretary had with the Prime Minister on that, and will investigating the UK’s structural poverty and inequality be part of a covid inquiry?

Matthew Hancock: I discussed this issue with the Prime Minister. The office for health promotion is intended to be able to tackle some of those issues, led clinically by the chief medical officer, to make sure we can strengthen the public health case around Government, because so many policies of Departments outwith the Health Department are critical in addressing the question the hon. Lady raises.

Peter Bone: I thank the Secretary of State for yet again coming to the House to update us on the covid situation. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the whole Government must take great credit for the vaccination programme. The Secretary of State is surely right when he says we can defeat covid only if we have vaccinations, and we have been tremendously successful at that; I think we did 800,000 in one day last week. However, is it possible for us to increase that vaccination rate even more so we can defeat this terrible pandemic even earlier?

Matthew Hancock: I hope so. The great limiting factor remains supply. We get them out as fast as we get them in; there is not a stockpile waiting. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of the programme: trusting the vaccine science and offering everybody a vaccine is the way out for all of us. If the Bolton example demonstrates that it is the unvaccinated who end up in hospital, we need to get that message to everyone. I would far rather be getting the vaccines out than having  to undertake the sorts of local lockdown we had in the autumn; it is a far, far better approach, because we have these capabilities—the vaccines and the mass testing. That is the approach we are taking; my hon. Friend is right to highlight it, and he was very kind to say what he said about me.

Andrew Selous: People are really grateful to GP surgeries for their role in the vaccine roll-out, but are very keen to be seen face to face by a doctor, where that is appropriate, and in a timely manner. What is the Department doing to make that increasingly possible, please?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the note that went out last week from Dr Nikki Kanani about ensuring that face-to-face access is available to the appropriate clinician, and that the use of technology should be encouraged but should be a matter for a discussion between the clinician and the patient. For many people, it is more of an advantage. Personally, I use telemedicine, and it is much more convenient for me, as a healthy and busy 42-year-old, but for some people it is right to see their clinician face to face. That letter went out last week, and we obviously constantly keep this issue under review and monitor it carefully.

Mike Amesbury: Last week, I met the Taskforce for Lung Health, which raised a concern about an increased occurrence of lung scarring in long covid sufferers. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of this on potential resources for the health service?

Matthew Hancock: We are of course worried about the impact of long covid, and the evidence is growing about the different impacts. The clinical advice is that there are a number of different syndromes that are, together, badged as long covid. For some people it has an impact, as the hon. Member says, on lung scarring; for some people the impact is more neurological. So we have to make sure that the services, the response and, indeed, the research are targeted at the different types of long covid. I am very happy to arrange a discussion between him and our clinical leaders on long covid, because it is a very important topic.

Luke Evans: The Health Secretary may be forgiven, as he is one of the busiest people in the country at the moment, if he missed Tielemans’s strike from 30 yards and the VAR decision late on in the game, but 21,000 fans saw it live, and many of them were my constituents who were there to celebrate Leicester City winning the cup. Wembley of course holds 90,000 people and it was a test event, so when will we find out the results of the test event and the outcome for things such as the Euros in the future?

Matthew Hancock: We will find out the results in the next few weeks. Of course, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) may have been so cheerful in his opening remarks because he was there, and he saw Leicester triumph. I watched it, and I just thought how brilliant it was to see a live crowd again. It was not full— that is true—and no doubt it could have been filled, but it was not full because we are taking it carefully. I am working with my right hon Friend the Culture Secretary and the Minister for Sport—the Under-Secretary of State  for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) —who I know found it extremely enjoyable to be able to go to a sports event as the Minister for Sport, which he has missed. We will assess the data that come out of it. Everybody who went is part of a testing regime. We will look at the results, as we will look at the results of the other pilots, such as the Brits and the snooker at the Crucible, and then make an assessment.

Ruth Cadbury: The UK’s defences against incoming covid infections are only as strong as the weakest point. I am still awaiting a response from the Health Secretary about the Hounslow director of public health’s concerns about covid-infected seafarers being transported to Hounslow hotels by the shipping companies, with no quarantine, no prompt notification to local public health teams and no consistent infection control at the hotels. Travellers and staff at Heathrow are also raising concerns about weaknesses in the arrivals process. When will the Health Secretary convince this House that the UK’s covid defences are fit for purpose?

Matthew Hancock: I pay tribute to the team who have put together the managed quarantine service, which has run remarkably smoothly for such a complicated operation. They are always very happy to hear feedback, and are constantly improving the system. I work very closely with the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary on this. There have been remarkably few complaints about a system that has had to be put in place for significant numbers of people.

Holly Mumby-Croft: I thank the Health Secretary for his constant support in ensuring continuous vaccine supplies to the Baths Hall. We have, of course, been following the Prime Minister’s announcements closely in Scunthorpe. Will my right hon. Friend set out more detail on how the move toward some second doses after eight weeks will be implemented, especially for those who have already booked their 12-week appointment?

Matthew Hancock: I am delighted that we managed to sort out the wrinkle that we had with the supplies of vaccine to Scunthorpe. It was a really good example of how this should work: my hon. Friend spoke up for Scunthorpe, and then the Minister got it fixed. I am very glad that we managed to sort that, and if there are any further problems, please do let me know.
We are inviting people who are over 50 and have a second jab booked 12 weeks after their first to rebook their vaccination from eight weeks after—not before eight weeks, because the effectiveness of the second jab strengthens for those first eight weeks. They can do that on the national booking system or through calling 119. We are texting those whose numbers we have to communicate with them. There is a whole process in place to get people rebooked wherever possible.

Toby Perkins: People in Chesterfield are looking forward to getting back to the football stadium this weekend. I am not sure we will enjoy it quite as much as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) did this weekend; none the less, it is incredibly important to everyone. For that reason, they are understandably worried by the increase of the Indian variant, so it is important that we understand the decisions. I heard  what the Health Secretary had to say about the reasons why he thought it was appropriate for India to be put on the list later than Pakistan and Bangladesh, but there will be those who think that the Prime Minister’s impending trip to India was a factor. We know there is an inquiry coming down the track. Will the Health Secretary confirm and clarify that there were no discussions, when the decision was made to put India on the red list later than Pakistan and Bangladesh, about the economic consequences, the Prime Minister’s trip or anything like that, and that it was purely health considerations that were in play?

Matthew Hancock: These decisions are based on the evidence, and the Joint Biosecurity Centre puts forward the evidence for red-listing. In the first instance, the red list is there to stop new variants, but this variant was not a known variant under investigation. Because of the increase in the overall rates—the overall positivity—of people coming to this country, first from Pakistan and Bangladesh at the start of April, and then towards the end of April from India, we took the precautionary decision to put them on the red list. That is a matter of fact; I am happy to state that. The job now is to make sure we keep this all under control.

Laura Farris: The success of the vaccination programme has surpassed expectations, in part because of the very effective work that was done in tackling vaccine hesitancy at the start, but it is implicit in my right hon. Friend’s statement that, in Bolton and Blackburn particularly, there has been less success with persuading some people. What does he consider to be the model of good practice in persuading hard-to-reach groups? Where does he think that has taken place, and how will he roll it out in other areas?

Matthew Hancock: I am incredibly proud that the UK has the highest measured rate of enthusiasm for taking the vaccine in the world, and especially that such a  diverse nation has been able to achieve that record by taking this positive attitude and having people from Her Majesty down setting out the value of being vaccinated. I pay tribute to the comms team at NHS England and my communications team from across Whitehall, which have taken the lessons for how to get a positive narrative, especially on social media, and made sure we fought lies with objective truth. That has been fantastic.
On the ground, there are some really good examples. I mentioned my visit to Brent central mosque and I pay tribute to the people there. Some brilliant work has happened in Leicester; for instance, there was a vaccination centre right next to an area heavily populated by those of Somali background, but they were not going to the vaccination centre despite the fact that it was next door and so we set up a vaccination centre almost next door but where the doctors and clinicians are themselves Somalis. We then we saw a very sharp rate in the Somali vaccination rate. That is one example that I can immediately add to the elucidation of the answer to this question, but there are legion. People from around the world have been coming, via Zoom, to talk to some of our more innovative vaccination centres, be it at the mosque, at the Hindu temple in Neasden, which is doing brilliant work, in Leicester or, now, in Bolton and Blackburn, where I hope we can make some really significant progress. Frankly, this country should be proud of how people have pulled together to make this vaccination programme work.

Nigel Evans: Unbelievably, I am older than Will Wragg, marginally, so I have had my first jab. The second jab is a week Saturday—bring it on! Secretary of State, thank you for your statement today. We will suspend for two minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Debate on the Address

[4th Day]

Debate resumed (Order, 13 May).
Question again proposed,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Safe Streets for All

Priti Patel: It is a great honour to open this debate on the Queen’s Speech. Protecting the public is the first duty of any Government, and from day one as Home Secretary it has been my No. 1 priority. The law-abiding majority deserves nothing less, and everything we ever do depends upon it: every time we walk down the street; every time we attend an event, a concert or a football match; each day when we send our children to school; and even when we are at home. Our democracy, our prosperity, our communities and our liberties all depend on an effective system of law and order. This Government have made great progress. Thanks to a massive recruitment drive, thousands more police officers are in our communities tackling criminality and protecting the public. With our backing, law enforcement has struck major blows against county lines drug gangs and organised crime. We have brought forward landmark legislation to better protect and support millions of domestic abuse victims and their children. We have overhauled terrorist sentencing and monitoring so that our outstanding police and security services can better address the threats that we face.
We are far from done. Criminals and terrorists do not stand still and neither will this Government. Our agenda is ambitious and I make no apology for that. We were elected on a clear manifesto promise to keep this country safe. We will build on the action that we have already taken.

Mike Amesbury: Will the Secretary of State apologise for cutting nearly 22,000 police officers in the first place?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman’s comment is irrelevant, as he failed to hear my first comment about protecting our citizens and about the investment that we have put into policing. That investment is getting stronger and it is growing; we now have more than 8,000 new police officers. Perhaps he would like to welcome the new officers in his constituency.
We are giving our brave police officers the support and the protection that they deserve as well as the powers that they need to tackle crime and criminality. We are also taking back control of the country’s borders with a fair, but firm immigration system, restoring confidence in the criminal justice system and making the punishment fit the crime, doing more to counter the  full range of state threats posed to the United Kingdom and cleaning up the internet by making tech companies meet their responsibility to protect people, children in particular, from online harm.
Last Wednesday, we reintroduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which begins its Committee stage tomorrow. This Bill is essential for making our streets safe and, as we build back better from this pandemic, we must also build back safer. That is why this Government proudly stand with the law-abiding majority in backing our fantastic police. For well over a year, during an unprecedented emergency, police officers have been there, performing their duty, supporting their communities, and protecting all of us, day in, day out. Their contribution has been outstanding and must never be forgotten.
On top of what is already a demanding job for them, every day a police officer goes to work could be a day in which they have to face or to arrest an aggressive and violent offender, listen to a child describe a sexual assault, make a split-second decision of immense consequence or knock on a stranger’s door and tell them that their loved one has been killed. Even before the pandemic, it was high time for us to do more as a country to recognise their incredible sacrifice.
Through the Bill, we will put into law a requirement on the Home Secretary to report annually to Parliament on the police covenant. The new covenant sets out our commitment to enhance, support and protect those working within, or retired from, policing roles—whether paid or as volunteers—and also their families. It is designed to recognise the unique role played by our society by the police workforce and will initially focus on health and wellbeing, physical protection and family support. This Bill acknowledges the debt that we owe the police.
The vast majority of the public in the country have nothing but respect and admiration for the police, and yet our officers are subjected to abuse and violence. We will not tolerate that any longer. It is a disgraceful way to treat any human being. Any assault on a police officer is also an assault on the fabric of our society. It is not enough to respect and admire the police in theory. This Bill backs them with the full force of the law and the maximum penalty for thugs who assault an emergency worker will double to two years in prison.
Serious violence has a corrosive impact on our communities and there is an urgent moral imperative to tackle it. The police have a vital role and I am proud that there are now more bobbies on the beat. More than 8,000 new officers have already been recruited as part of our campaign to recruit an additional 20,000.
We have invested more than £100 million over two years to boost the operational response to violent crime. As a result of that work, more than 100,000 weapons have been taken off our streets. But as long as young lives are lost, families are left shattered and communities are gripped by fear, and we must do more. Every time someone carries a knife or a weapon, they risk destroying lives—their own and others’. Reoffending remains a significant problem, so the Bill will empower the police to take more proactive approaches, particularly in relation to known offenders, by introducing serious violence reduction orders. These targeted stop-and-search powers will tackle high-risk individuals and act as a strong deterrent.
Law enforcement is only part of the answer, though; we must also do much more to prevent violent crimes. The Bill will introduce a serious violence duty that will require the police, local authorities and others to work together to address problems in their areas. Importantly, it will undoubtedly save lives. When lives are lost, every single lesson must be learned, so the Bill will introduce a requirement for formal homicide reviews to be considered following adult deaths involving offensive weapons.
The right to protest peacefully is woven into the fabric of our country’s history. It is a right that this Government will always protect. That does not mean that the police should be powerless to intervene when peaceful protests are hijacked by chaos and disorder on our streets.
Before I turn to the measures that we are bringing forward, I must address some of the ugly scenes that we saw across London over the weekend. There is never an excuse or justification for inciting antisemitism or hatred against any community or faith. Some of the language—the chants and slogans—used by protestors and activists this weekend was unacceptable. In fact, it was racist. The streets of London, our great capital city, saw people waving antisemitic placards comparing Israel with Nazi Germany. There were violent chants of “Kill the Jews”, along with many other abhorrent chants and rhetoric that I will not repeat. All this was shamefully supported on social media—Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter were awash with antisemitic and abusive content.
All right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the footage of the convoy of cars driving down the Finchley Road. That was nothing to do with Palestine or Israel; it was pure and simple antisemitism that sought to intimidate, harass and frighten members of the Jewish community. I am sickened by the behaviours that were witnessed over the weekend. In an open and free society, we of course all have the right to express our views openly, but any free and open society must never turn a blind eye to appalling hatred, racism and antisemitism of the type witnessed over the weekend.
There is also never an excuse to exercise or direct violence towards our police. Six police officers were injured following Saturday’s protest because of the utterly disgraceful behaviour of a few. I stand by those officers, who sought to support the right to a peaceful protest while enforcing the law against a criminal minority.
In recent years, we have seen some protesters and groups use increasingly disruptive tactics that are a drain on the public purse and result in police forces having to move officers away from their regular responsibilities. Protesters’ rights must be balanced against the right of everyone else to go about their daily lives, so we are introducing a modest reset of the police powers for the effective management of highly disruptive protests. It will uphold the right to freedom of speech and assembly while ensuring that people can go to work, ambulances are unhindered and the free press can function unimpeded.
The Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to a criminal justice system in which the British people can have full confidence. Too often, the public could be forgiven for thinking that the rights of criminals trump the rights of victims. Sentencing is one of the few ways in which the public, victims and offenders see justice being done. We are delivering on our manifesto promise by toughening punishment for the worst offenders and preventing automatic early release for those who have  committed serious crimes. We must also give offenders a fair start on the road to rehabilitation, so we will introduce community sentences that are both tougher and more effective when it comes to addressing the causes of offending. Our message to criminals remains simple: we will come for you.

Iain Duncan Smith: While my right hon. Friend is on sentencing and what is not in the Bill, I wonder whether she, with the Lord Chancellor sitting next to her, will give me this undertaking. Could we find a mechanism, through the Bill, to address the theft of pets, which has turned violent in many communities, including mine? It is not a joke—it is a serious set of offences and it is ill dealt with by the sentencing process and in law. Will she give that undertaking?

Priti Patel: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I think this comes back to the whole issue of criminality. The issue of pet theft is incredibly sensitive. It is emotive and absolutely distressing—there is no question about it. There is also a very serious underlying issue of violence. The types of tactics used demonstrate why this Government are right to be tough on criminals and criminality. Of course, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have established a taskforce and are looking at the appropriate measures that can be put in place. This Government are absolutely committed to dealing with this issue, along with much of the serious offending that I have already referred to.

Wera Hobhouse: Talking about violence and the safety of our streets, following Sarah Everard’s murder and the outpouring of solidarity from women across the UK calling for an end to all forms of violence against women and girls, is it not time for the Government to support the Our Streets Now campaign, which calls for public sexual harassment to be made a specific criminal offence?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I will come shortly to the issue of harassment and violence against women and girls. She refers to an important campaign. In fact, I have met some of the campaigners, who are very young and speak of the most appalling harassment, which we all agree is unacceptable. Along with much of our work—I will come shortly to our approach—these are important issues that we must not forget.
I have touched on criminality and the fact that this Government are absolutely robust and tough when it comes to punishment for the worst offenders. But I am also sorry that I have to remind the House that the Labour party has already chosen to vote against these measures. Labour voted against tougher sentences for child murderers, tougher sentences for sex offenders, the dozens of measures to crack down on knife and violent crime—the very crime that blights communities and leads to loss of life—as well as powers to protect emergency workers from assault, and the delivery of better protection for victims and witnesses in cases of violent and sexual offences.
Every time we give the Opposition the opportunity to stand on the side of the hard-working, law-abiding majority, guess what? They choose the wrong side. What message does that send out to our police, to victims of crime and to the British people? As the results of the recent British police and crime commissioner elections show, 70% of PCCs are now Conservative. People across the country  rejected Labour’s political games and voted for the Conservative party—the authentic party of law and order in Britain—in those important elections.
Throughout my time in politics, I have seen at first hand how crime can devastate the lives of victims, their families and their communities. As the former co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on victims and witnesses of crime, and now as Home Secretary, I have often seen people suffer enormously—physically, emotionally and financially—as a result of their experiences. I have spent too much time with grieving parents who have lost their children to violence and violent crime.
Victims are at the very heart of the Government’s approach. We will ensure that victims are supported and have their rights recognised at every stage of the criminal justice system and beyond. We are investing record amounts in victim support and have published a new victims code based on 12 key rights for every victim of crime. Yet we know that there is more to do to transform the way in which victims are treated. We will enshrine the new victims code in law and hold agencies to account in delivering victims’ rights. The victims code is the culmination of two years of extensive work, including hearing directly from victims and victims groups. It gives us a comprehensive framework for effective legislation, and it is our intention to proceed without delay. Following a consultation later this year, we will publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.
I want to see an institutional overhaul in the Government and society’s response to violence against women and girls. That was tragically and horrifically underlined by the death of Sarah Everard earlier this year, and that terrible, terrible case prompted an outpouring of grief and a sharing of experiences across the country from women and girls. Let me be crystal clear: no one—no one at all—should be made to feel unsafe when walking our streets. No one should feel the need to speed up when they hear footsteps behind them. No one should have to be on the phone or pretend to be on the phone to deter potential attackers.
I must also pay my respects to Kent police PCSO Julia James. My thoughts and the thoughts of everyone in the House will be with her family, her friends and her colleagues at what has been a truly awful time. Every decent person in our country is sick of abhorrent violence, abuse and harassment in our society. Our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 will strengthen our collective response to these horrendous crimes across the criminal justice system and society by strengthening protections for victims while ensuring that perpetrators feel the full force of the law.
For too long, the experiences of rape victims in the system have been insensitive, so we are carrying out a comprehensive rape review. It will rightly look at the entire experiences of rape victims at every stage of how the criminal justice system handles cases, from the police report to the final outcome at court. Everyone must learn and understand that complex and traumatic crimes such as rape must be handled with care and empathy, supported by effective processes that will give victims faith and confidence in our justice system. Further details of the review will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.
There is still more to do, and I am profoundly grateful for the extraordinary response we have received to our call for evidence on violence against women and girls. It will mean that the public will have their voices heard, because that evidence will directly shape two ambitious strategies. This summer, we will publish a tackling violence against women and girls strategy, which will outline the work across Government to prioritise prevention, support victims and survivors, and pursue perpetrators. It will be followed by a domestic abuse strategy, because the scale of the problem is striking.
Unlike most other types of crime, police-recorded domestic abuse-related offences increased between April and September 2020 as compared with the same period in 2019. The Government responded quickly during the pandemic and provided more than £28 million to domestic abuse services that had been affected directly by the pandemic. Meanwhile, our “You Are Not Alone” public awareness campaign has reached tens of millions of people.
We know that for too many, home is not a safe place. That tragic reality has been even more profound throughout the pandemic. Earlier this year we launched the “Ask for ANI” codeword scheme to provide direct support for victims of domestic abuse through community pharmacies. Almost half of UK pharmacies, including Boots pharmacies, are now signed up to the scheme, and that is more than 5,000 places. I thank those pharmacies for their support and the protection they are giving to women across the country. The scheme has provided support to women and men all over the UK, and at its peak it was being used on a daily basis.
I have outlined the ways in which we will make our streets and our communities safer, but someone—anyone—can be targeted, harassed, abused or exploited without leaving their home. That is why we are taking world-leading action to protect the public online, as well as offline. Our landmark online safety Bill will be a game changer in internet safety. It will usher in a new era of accountability for online platforms that will increase protection for children, crack down on racist hate crimes, prevent the spread of terrorist content and tackle online scams. Technology firms will be forced to report online child abuse on their platforms—a crucial change that will give law enforcement the evidence that it needs to bring perpetrators to justice. Companies that fail in the new duty of care will rightly face hefty fines. I also want to assure the House that the Bill includes measures to safeguard freedom of expression and democracy. Technology companies will no longer be able to arbitrarily remove content, and users will be given a right to escalate an appeal if they do.
This Government were also elected to improve the UK’s safety and security by taking back control of our borders and properly enforcing our immigration laws. We have already delivered on our promises on legal migration. Despite opposition from the open borders party opposite, we have ended free movement, introduced the British points-based immigration system and started to speed up the removal of those with no right to be in the UK.

Munira Wilson: The Queen’s Speech made no mention of EU citizens’ rights, but more than 300,000 have still not had their settled status processed by the Home Office. What assurance can the Home  Secretary give those people that their applications will be processed before the end of June deadline, and that if they are not, that they will not be subject to the hostile environment?

Priti Patel: I am actually grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, because she gives me the opportunity to speak about the success of the EU settled status scheme, which has now given settled status to approximately 5 million people. The Government were mocked when we launched the scheme; we were told that we would never even reach 3 million. To answer her question specifically, intensive work is taking place across the country to reach some hard-to-reach communities, particularly because of the pandemic. Many of the outreach programmes had stopped, but we are now going back into communities and also reaching out to diaspora communities. We are also working with local authorities to reach out to communities, and children in particular, to ensure that their registration takes place. Extensive work is taking place in this area.
I was about to speak about our proposals to address the illegal side of migration. Illegal migration causes real harm and endangers the lives of those undertaking many dangerous and perilous journeys, more often than not in the hands of smugglers and people traffickers. The number of people crossing the English channel in small boats reached record levels last summer. People smugglers trade in human misery. Not only do these gangs exploit and hurt desperate people, but they are responsible for other illicit activities ranging from drugs and firearms trafficking to serious violent crime. They must be brought to task.
The House will recall that earlier this year I launched our new plan for immigration. It is underpinned by the principle that access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need and not on the ability to pay people smugglers. Nobody thinking rationally could object to that. Our new Bill will help to deliver that plan, which will increase the fairness and efficacy of our system. It will better protect those in need of genuine asylum. It will deter illegal entry into the UK, break the business model of criminal traffickers and their networks, and save lives. It will also make it easier to remove people with no right to be in the country, including dangerous foreign criminals.
Those who come to the UK legally to work hard and contribute to our national life will always be welcome, but those who abuse that welcome by committing crimes will be deported. So far this year, more than 650 foreign national offenders have been removed from the UK; that means fewer foreign murderers, rapists and drug dealers on our streets. While those on the Opposition Benches will do everything they can to stop us, we will persevere, because this is what the British people rightly expect of their Government. This country and this Government have a proud record of helping those who face persecution, oppression and tyranny, and we will always stand by our legal and moral obligations to innocent people fleeing persecution.

Anthony Mangnall: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but she touches on an important point relating to modern slavery. Will she say to the House whether that means an intention to reform the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include supply chains and investments?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will see when the Bill is introduced some of the loopholes and the way in which even the landmark Modern Slavery Act is sadly being abused by criminal gangs and traffickers. There is an important point that we must address. We will continue to support those who flee persecution and those who become victims of gangs and criminals. Those important elements will be part of the legislation. We want to get it right because we must absolutely stop the level of criminality that is taking place. That very much speaks to the fact that the current system is not fit for purpose and justice is being delayed for those with genuine and important asylum claims. Judicial and court resources are overstretched and our new plan for immigration will address that.
The Bill will ensure that the system does not reward those who enter the UK illegally and through those appalling illicit means. Those who have travelled through a safe country where they could reasonably have claimed asylum, such as France or Belgium, are now inadmissible in the UK asylum system. For the first time, whether people enter the UK legally or illegally will have an impact on how their asylum claim is progressed, and on their status in the UK if their claim is successful. We will create a new and expanded one-stop-shop process so that asylum, human rights and any other protection claims are made and considered up front at the beginning of the process, ending the cycle of limitless appeals in our courts.
As I have made clear, the Government will do whatever it takes to protect the public, and that also applies to our national security. This year, we implemented the largest shake-up of terrorist sentencing and monitoring in decades. The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 gives the courts, the police, the probation service and the security services greater powers to protect the public. The public rightly expect that we are always looking for ways to strengthen our national security. That includes responding to the growing and evolving threats and risk posed by other states.
States that engage in hostile activity are becoming more assertive in how they advance their objectives and undermine our own. Their tactics are markedly different from those used by other adversaries. While the methods deployed by terrorists often rely on grabbing the public’s attention, states conducting hostile activity against us typically seek to operate in the shadows and remain hidden. We need to be constantly alert to espionage, political and electoral interference, sabotage, disinformation, cyber-operations and intellectual property theft. Though those acts fall short of open conflict, the consequences for our democracy and our economic security and prosperity are a real and present threat.
To address that, we will introduce a counter-state threats Bill that modernises and updates existing espionage laws, and creates new offences, tools and powers to detect, disrupt and deter hostile activity in the UK and actively targeted at the UK. It will also improve our ability to protect official data. Many of the Official Secrets Acts date back to the early 20th century, with their roots in the 1889 Act. They are simply no longer suitable for the modern world we live in. We will therefore reform the Official Secrets Acts of 1911, 1920, 1939 and 1989. Legislation will also include the creation of a foreign influence registration scheme. That is an important new tool to combat espionage and interference and protect research in sensitive subject areas.
On 13 May, I published a public consultation on the Government’s legislative proposals to counter state threats, which includes seeking views about the reform of treason laws. The response to this consultation will help to shape the new tools and powers so that they are comprehensive, effective and workable, and, importantly, will protect our national security along with our rights and our values.
As we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, we are determined to build back safer. This Government will continue to deliver on the people’s priorities. The British public back the police and want to see more police officers in their communities, and we are delivering on that. They want us to take back our country’s borders, and we are delivering on that. They want us to ensure that criminals are properly punished for breaking our laws, and we are delivering on that. Where further action is needed to make our streets, our people and communities safe, we will take it. As Home Secretary, I am driven by a simple goal, which is to do the right thing by the law-abiding majority of our great country. That means supporting our police and others whose job it is to keep us safe, defeating the criminals and criminal gangs, securing our borders and removing those with no right to be here, protecting our national security, and taking the strongest possible action against those who wish to harm us. The measures that I have outlined today will help us to achieve just that, and this Government will always put the safety of the British people first.

Eleanor Laing: It may be helpful for colleagues to know that there will initially be a time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches but I would expect that to reduce in due course.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: It is a privilege to open this debate for the Opposition at a critical moment for our country.
First, I would like to reiterate what I said during the urgent question earlier and to condemn absolutely the vile, antisemitic, sickening, misogynistic abuse we saw on the streets of London. That behaviour is never acceptable, and I hope that a strong message goes out from right across this House that we abhor it. I send best wishes for a swift recovery to the six police officers who were injured. I would also like to say that the thoughts of those on the Labour Benches are with the family of PCSO Julia James. I commend Kent police for the work that they have done on that investigation.
I give thanks, on behalf of all Labour Members, for the remarkable service that those on the frontline have given during this crisis. Our police officers, firefighters, emergency services, health and social care workers, shop workers, transport workers and local government workers—indeed, all those on the frontline—have shown incredible bravery and dedication in the face of a deadly virus. It has been sobering and it has been inspiring. I pay tribute, too, to all those who lost their lives to this awful virus in carrying out their duties. It is a devastating loss for so many families for whom life will never quite be the same again. Those who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe are the best of us, and we thank them for their service.
We all rightly stood and clapped frontline workers, but the sound of applause does not pay bills. It is wrong —totally wrong—that this Government have time and again praised the work of frontline workers but refused to give them the fair pay rise that they deserve. This has been a time of national sacrifice and none has risked their life more than those who serve on our frontline. I have visited police stations and heard about our frontline officers putting themselves at risk to help others, not knowing who or what they will encounter when they are out on the beat. I have spoken to firefighters and heard about the sacrifices they have made, delivering food parcels and personal protective equipment, driving covid patients to hospitals, and, very sadly, moving bodies. Yet they face a threat to the collective bargaining body that protects firefighters’ rights. Again, Labour Members call on the Government to think again: to reward our key workers and, as a first step, revisit the deeply unfair pay freeze for those who have served so bravely during the pandemic.
As we consider the measures in this Queen’s Speech, it is clear that yet again, under this Conservative Government, there is no shortage of rhetoric but a clear commitment to action is missing. Talking tough and failing to act has been a trademark of this Government’s 11 years in office. Under this Government, victims have been failed and the public has been failed. Rape convictions have fallen to a record low, with just one in every 100 reported rapes even getting to a court. Fraud has rocketed, with 4.4 million victims in the last year. Hundreds of thousands of police records have been lost, and we still have no idea if they will all be recovered. Antisocial behaviour reports have soared by 5 million over the past decade. Assaults on police officers went up 40% during the lockdown, and court delays are now so bad that criminals are not facing justice in the way they should be. It is a litany of failure.
At the same time, the services that are so vital to preventing so many of these appalling acts from happening in the first place have been cut to the bone over the past 11 years. There has been a £1.4 billion cut in youth services, 750 youth centres have closed, and more than 4,500 youth workers have been lost. Mental health services are so stretched that people desperately in need of support are left abandoned, at risk to themselves and others. The Government’s total mess on probation services means that probation officers have one hand tied behind their backs and are doing their best to carry on the vital job of tackling reoffending. It is a shameful record.
The tough talk continued in this Queen’s Speech, but the reality is, frankly, different. In reality, this Government are soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. The truth is that under this Government, criminals have never had it so good, and it is little wonder that the statistics are so dire with the huge cuts the Government have made to policing. We have seen police numbers plummet since 2010, with 21,000 officers lost across the country and police staff lost as well. We have had a Conservative Government for over a decade who were content to sit back and see violence rise and police numbers fall while the Home Office’s own research was showing them that the police cuts were linked to levels of crime. Of course, I welcome more police on our streets, but the Government uplift programme will not even replace the officers lost since 2010, and what about the police staff lost as well, who play such a vital role?
The harsh reality is that this Government’s failure has had a devastating impact on people’s lives. Rocketing antisocial behaviour, with millions more instances recorded, mean that lives, often of the most vulnerable in our communities, are made a misery. The violence on our streets and in homes, soaring right across the country, has had devastating consequences, taking and ruining far too many lives and causing unimaginable heartache for families. Let us be under no illusion: while rising crime affects everyone in society, it is often those who are struggling most in our communities who are hardest hit, with our poorest neighbourhoods disproportionately impacted on by crime. That is the record of this Government.
What we see in this Queen’s Speech is a warped sense of priorities. This is a Government who are more interested in preventing people from voting than they are in preventing crime. This Queen’s Speech should have focused on addressing rising crime, bringing perpetrators to justice and keeping people safe, but, sadly, what I see is a raft of proposed measures in this Queen’s Speech that, I fear, are about sounding tough but fail to rise to the scale of the challenge.
Let me turn to the measures that have been announced. On fire safety, we will, of course, look carefully at the role of the proposed building safety regulator, but the reality is that thousands of people continue to live in dangerous buildings nearly four years after the tragedy of Grenfell. Before Parliament prorogued, the Government, on four separate occasions, whipped their MPs to vote against amendments that would have ensured that remediation costs would not be passed on to leaseholders. Instead of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), the Government chose to look the other way. I have met those who are still living in those buildings with dangerous cladding—very moving it was as well—and I can tell Ministers that what they want is action, not more words.
Let me turn to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, carried over from the last Session. Of course, there are some elements of that Bill that the Labour party not only supports but campaigned for. My hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) introduced “protect the protectors” legislation to increase the maximum sentence for assaults on emergency service workers. The Home Secretary boasted at the Dispatch Box about increasing that to two years. The Government could have done that three years ago; when they were asked to do so by my hon. Friends, they would not do it. Indeed, we believe that the Government should now look at protecting the pandemic heroes and extend protections to shop workers as well as other vital frontline workers and social care staff.
We are also glad to see long overdue work on the police covenant. I put on the record my praise for the work of John Apter and the Police Federation, campaigning hard to deliver this much-needed change. However, we will be pushing hard to ensure that this is not a paper exercise but a real step forward for police that helps to protect their health and, vitally, their mental health and wellbeing.

Anthony Mangnall: Clearly the right hon. Gentleman was asleep during the local elections, when we won 10 more police and crime commissioners, showing that the general public view us as tough on crime. If he is going to stand there and say that we are not supporting  our frontline workers when we said that we would be tougher on sentences, why did his party vote against that? Why did it not say that it would take the Bill to Committee and reform it, or at least come up with a sensible idea rather than carping from the side?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, just like I will listen to voters in parts of England, I hope that he will listen to the voters in Wales, where we won three of the four police and crime commissioners and a Labour Government achieved the best result in elections since the advent of devolution, showing that Labour in power actually works. [Interruption.] He scoffs at the voters of Wales. I think he should seriously look at the message that they are sending to him.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Government Members know perfectly well that they could have had a Bill that found consensus across this House. Instead, they chose to introduce divisive elements on protest and on discrimination against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities that made that impossible. He knows that, and Ministers know it too.
Indeed, there are measures in the Bill on death by dangerous driving, for example, championed by my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who worked on a cross-party basis with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). There is the part of the Bill on positions of trust, where we extend the scope of protections against those who perpetrate sexual relationships with young people under 18. Again, that had a cross-party genesis, with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) working with the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). That too could be widened, to include driving instructors and music tutors. I credit my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for securing changes to the Disclosure and Barring Service.
There are some long overdue parts of the Bill that deal with disproportionality, such as the use of problem-solving courts, recognising remand of children as a last resort, and reform of the criminal records disclosure regime, but the reality is that those things go nowhere near far enough. I was challenged about what Labour would do. The Lammy review, which sets out 35 recommendations, has sat on the Government’s shelf since 2017. They need to implement it. [Interruption.] The Lord Chancellor knows very well that they are not implementing the 35 recommendations. I would be quite happy to go through all 35 with him.
On the Government’s proposed legislation on race and ethnic disparity, I am deeply concerned, since it now seems to be their position that structural racism does not even exist. With that view, we cannot trust this Government to bring forward measures so desperately needed to tackle structural racism. That lack of trust is shown in the way the Home Office has so badly mishandled the Windrush compensation scheme. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary shouts “Rubbish”, but I have spoken to the victims who have been treated so badly.  I have spoken to people who have waited years for payments, forced to fight back against insulting offers, and people whose family members have passed away before compensation was received.
Now, the Home Secretary says “Rubbish”; these are her statistics. She promised to speed up the process. On 21 April, 1,417 cases were being processed. Five hundred of them had been ongoing for over a year, and others had been in the system for over two years. Those are the Home Secretary’s own statistics. That slow progress piles injustice upon injustice.
Let me come to the crackdown on protest. Where our existing laws are sufficient, it is wrong-headed and dangerous. The right to protest is a precious part of our democracy that should be treasured, not trashed. At the same time, the measures against unauthorised encampments would further discriminate against our Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities, in breach of the Human Rights Act and of the Equality Act.
Another area in which the Government’s poor record is matched by their lack of ambition is addressing violence against women and girls, which remains a stain on our society. The tragic death of Sarah Everard drew attention in the starkest terms to the desperate need for change that so many of us have long been calling for. As a society, and as men in particular, we must do better by listening to the outpouring of powerful testimonies, but—more importantly—by acting. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was rightly exposed for the shameful way in which it overlooked reforms that people have been crying out for, and I pay tribute to all those who have spoken up so powerfully: my colleagues my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon Central and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and all those across these Benches and the House who have said, “Enough is enough”.
There is deep anger and frustration about the scale of the challenge and the glacial speed of action. We have had several strategies announced in the past by the Government, and in the Queen’s Speech we have had the announcement of the violence against women and girls strategy, but with no timescale or proposed action. Today, Labour is proposing action, and we published our proposals this morning: a rape survivors plan, with support needed from start to finish; cases of rape and serious sexual violence fast-tracked through the system and a Minister tasked with the responsibility of driving change through; tougher sentences for rape, stalking and domestic homicide, including reviewing sentences for all domestic abuse; and a new law on street harassment. We need to ensure that all police forces have specialist teams of rape and serious sexual assault officers in place to support victims and drive up conviction rates; to remove the legal barriers that prevent any victim of domestic abuse getting the help they need, such as barriers to legal aid and no recourse to public funds; and a victims Bill with the victim at the heart of the system, supported through the process and afterwards. Let us see no more strategies and limited pilot schemes: let us see the action that is long overdue.
On the counter-state threats Bill, the warnings for action could not have been clearer: citizens poisoned on our own streets, attempts to subvert our democracy, and London becoming a laundromat for dirty money. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia could hardly have delivered a more damning indictment of deep, systemic failings in the Government’s  approach to the security threat posed by Russia, finding that the Government had “badly underestimated” the Russian threat and the response it required.
We thank our security services for the work they do, but they need more support. The Russia report concluded that previous changes in resourcing to counter Russian hostile state activity are not, or not only, due to a continuing escalation of the threat, but appear to be an indicator of “playing catch up”. We cannot keep playing catch-up, which is why we have long called for the recommendations of the Russia report to be implemented. It is why we have consistently criticised the actions of the Government of China against the Uyghur and on the security law in Hong Kong. We will look at this long-delayed legislation closely, and seek to work constructively to bring about the changes needed to guard against not just the threats of today, but the fast-emerging global threats to our democracy.
As we look at the UK’s role in the world, I want to turn to the new plan for immigration. I do not disagree that the asylum system is too slow: the reason for that is the Conservative party, which has run the immigration system for the past 11 years. The share of asylum applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 87% in 2014 to 20% in 2019. That is the Conservative record, and we have seen an approach from Ministers that lacks both competence and compassion. There has been a huge surge in the number of dangerous crossings in small boats from France, but where is the comprehensive deal with France to deal with it? The Department for International Development, which was the very Department that addressed the causes of people being displaced from their homes in the first place, has been abolished. Safe routes such as the Dubs scheme have closed down; the Dubs scheme closed after just a few hundred children, when everyone expected it to help 3,000. That is not the way to tackle the issue or the heinous crime of people trafficking.
At the same time, we have seen people housed in overcrowded accommodation that represented a fundamental failure of leadership and planning at the Home Office, leading to a dangerous covid outbreak and putting vulnerable people, staff and neighbouring communities at risk.
From what we have seen of the plans so far, they will do next to nothing to stop people making crossings. They risk withdrawing support from vulnerable people, including victims of human trafficking. Nor do this Government show any sign of delivering the international agreements they require for their measures. Yet again, Conservative failure will be hard-wired into the system.
On the issue of borders, the lax measures against covid have been frankly negligent. The Government were late to introduce formal quarantining, they failed to have an effective home quarantining system, and they were late to introduce border testing and hotel quarantining —and even then, only 1% of arrivals actually stayed in hotels.
Like everyone across the House, I am deeply worried by the sharp increase in the covid variant cases in Bolton, Blackburn, Darwen and other parts of the country. Cases have almost doubled in the past four days. If there is one thing we have learned from this awful virus, it is its ability to spread rapidly.
We should never have been in this position. We have been warning the Government for months of the reckless risks they have been taking with their half-baked border  measures. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary shakes her head, but she has been on video making clear her disagreement with the Government’s approach to the borders. We called a vote in this House in February on comprehensive hotel quarantining, but the Conservative party refused to back our plans, which would have given us the best chance of stopping strains reaching the UK. Instead, the variants first discovered in India, Brazil and South Africa have all reached the UK, with outbreaks occurring.
India was added to the red list only after cases had already been detected in the UK back in February. By 5 April, India was reporting more than 100,000 new covid cases a day, and neighbouring countries Pakistan and Bangladesh were added to the red list on 9 April. As cases rocketed in India, No. 10 kept saying that the planned visit by the Prime Minister, which was scheduled for 25 April, would go ahead. It was not until 19 April that No. 10 cancelled the trip to India—the same day that the Health Secretary announced that India would be added to the red list. That measure came into force on 23 April.
It has been reported that during that time of dither and delay, more than 20,000 travellers from India entered the country. The Prime Minister has serious questions to answer about the suggestions that he delayed adding India to the red list because of the planned visit.
Ministers must learn the lessons, act more cautiously now on the reopening of international travel, and make their border protections effective. Yet again, it is the same theme: Ministers talk tough but fail to take action to keep people safe. Sadly, that is the story of this Government: tough rhetoric; little effective action. At the same time, violence has been on the rise, affecting all our communities; neighbourhood policing has been cut to the bone; our democracy has been left vulnerable to hostile state action; and we have an immigration system devoid of compassion and competence.
What we needed was a bold vision for security in our country and safety on our streets. Instead, the legislative agenda set out in this Queen’s Speech merely repeats a pattern of failure, and it is the British people who are left to pay the price.

Iain Duncan Smith: Given that I have a limited amount of time, I will try to make some progress.
There is much in the Queen’s Speech that I support and welcome. I welcome the statements of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is long overdue. I also welcome the introduction of the taskforce on violence against women and girls—a vital area in which it is clear that so many people need action. The Bill’s stronger sentences for child murderers, rapists, violent offenders, dangerous drivers, child abusers, memorial desecraters, house burglars, drunk drivers and knife carriers are all well overdue. It is to my right hon. Friend’s credit that the Bill is being brought through the House. Protection of the police is another important feature, with an increase in the maximum available sentence for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years.  All those measures are vital, as are the new plans  on immigration.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall)—the Home Secretary knows that I have spoken to her about this—on the need to allow people who have a legitimate reason to be here as a result of modern-day slavery to stay here for longer and to make their case. I hope that will be borne out in the legislation, which she knows we have spoken about.
However, I would like today to turn to something that is not in my right hon. Friend’s brief—but this is the debate on the Queen’s Speech, and it is in the Queen’s Speech—which is planning. I am going to make a point that I dare say one or two of my colleagues may do, which is that I have deep concerns about some of the Government’s proposed planning changes. I will mention some of the key issues.
We all know that we need more homes, but it is important to understand what type of homes and to think about how we treat some of our communities. It is the propensity of many local authorities in far too many areas to just dump down large tower blocks to meet their numbers, but those blocks are completely out of keeping with areas made up of family homes in which many people live. We need to think about that very carefully.
I am worried about the ability of the Government, which they will preserve for themselves in the new legislation, to override local plans or growth plans, and about the fact that we may lose any planning application in the process, which people will not, therefore, be able to oppose. That will take away powers—what are very small powers, in a way—from local communities. I want the Government to think again about that.
I also want the Government to think again about the general development management policies, which I think will draw an unprecedented amount of power to central Government, with their ability to dictate the areas that will see growth and the type of growth they will see. That will not be too welcome among our constituents, and I want my hon. Friends to think carefully about it.
Overriding residents in these new designated growth zones will be a real problem. Even now, in many places, the idea of building these out-of-keeping tower blocks is a major problem, but it is one that will grow even more because we will simply allow local authorities to do it.
The extended personal development rights are also a problem, because they will not only allow businesses to be turned into flats, but allow developers to build upwards —that is my understanding—without any commitment to local facilities such as schools and roads. That goes against the purpose of planning in the first place. I raise that point with my hon. Friends, and I hope that that will not be the case.
Finally, I hope that during this Session, the Government will address the issue of those poor leaseholders who live in flats that had cladding installed on them—cladding that was illegal at the time it was installed—that they now have to pay to get rid of. We need to resolve this. There are many poor leaseholders who are going to suffer huge bills for cladding that—little did they know when they bought or became leaseholders of those flats—was actually the wrong cladding from the word go. Developers need to ante up and pay for that, and the Government need to drive that forward.
However, I do welcome the Queen’s Speech overall. I welcome the Home Secretary’s excellent speech and her excellent promotion of her legislation. She will receive  my response and my support throughout all that, but I do urge the Government to deal with the problems on planning and to deal with the developers over cladding.

Stuart McDonald: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, albeit remotely. However, much of what is proposed in the Queen’s Speech is more about protecting this Government and their Ministers than about protecting the public. It includes rolling back the power of our courts to halt unlawful Government action, a clampdown on protest, ripping up the refugee convention and measures tantamount to voter suppression.
Yet when it comes to the big problems that we need to address to keep people safe, key questions are completely ducked. In particular, as we approach its 50th anniversary, there was not so much as a glimmer of hope that the Government might look again at the hopelessly dated Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the utterly failed war on drugs. In reality, if we want safe streets, the Conservative party is the last place we should turn. Its relentless austerity obsession has hit policing, courts and prisons hard, and its Brexit obsession has excluded us from vital European justice and security measures, such as the Schengen information system II. On the contrary, it is this Government that we need to be kept safe from, as they seek to strip us of our rights and civil liberties. This is not a party of law and order, but a party that undermines the rule of law.
On Thursday, the Home Office was endangering the citizens of Glasgow with its stubborn, totally disproportionate and utterly intransigent attempt to dawn-raid two neighbours from Kenmure Street, despite it being absolutely apparent that it was never going to be able to effect that, thanks to the determined and peaceful community resistance. The timing and location of the raid, as well as the secrecy around it, were at best staggeringly insensitive and at worst deliberately provocative. It was a striking, but far from isolated, example of the Home Office at its aggressive worst, and light years away from the reformed institution that we have repeatedly been promised since Windrush. If the Home Office has listened and learned from those events, it will undertake no immigration enforcement activity in Glasgow without the express and advance knowledge of Police Scotland. Critically, such activity must be contemplated only if strictly and genuinely necessary for reasons of public safety, and if all alternatives have been exhausted.
The whole direction of travel indicated by this Queen’s Speech is deeply troubling, but it continues the trend of the past decade. Charities have been gagged from criticising the Government. The grave restrictions to legal aid introduced in 2012 continue to threaten access to justice and undermine the rule of law in England and Wales. We have lost the valuable rights and protections that we had as EU citizens. Human rights remain in the Government’s crosshairs, and now even the right to vote is to be undermined in moves that soon-to-be Baroness Ruth Davidson recently described as
“a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist”
and “for the birds”—indeed, she used some stronger terminology that I suspect is not parliamentary.
The policing Bill will see protest clamped down on, based on an obscure Law Commission consultation that barely achieved a double-digit response and did not make reference to protest a single time. Whereas previously we could look to the courts to protect Parliament against Prorogation and people against the Government overreaching legality—something the Home Office has a particularly bad track record on—the Government are now going after the courts and judges too, with their attack on judicial review.
This Queen’s Speech is spectacularly troubling and illustrates everything that is wrong with the broken British constitution, in which outdated notions of parliamentary supremacy mean that there is no such thing as protected rights, and an archaic Westminster system in which nothing is safe from a Government-stacked Parliament interested only in entrenching Government power.
In 2021, there are two incredibly significant anniversaries in the sphere of home affairs, which highlight everything that is wrong with what the Home Office is doing and failing to do. I refer to the refugee convention, which is approaching its 70th birthday, and the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is approach its 50th. First, on the Bill that will trash the refugee convention—what a contrast with the cross-party legislation that saw refugees voting in the Scottish Parliament election a little over a week ago—the Home Secretary seems determined to ride a coach and horses through long-established principles of international refugee law that have stood the test of time. She wants to raise the standard of proof required of asylum seekers above that set out in the convention, despite the incredible challenges of evidencing persecution in the country the asylum seeker has had to flee.
Instead of being granted refugee status, those accepted as being at risk of persecution will face a life in limbo for up to 10 years, with family reunion rights restricted, and will be left to languish without recourse to public funds. The less fortunate will already have been removed to an apparently unrestricted list of countries to have their claim assessed there, with no consideration of the risk of onward removal to a country of persecution. Many more will have to await decisions not in dispersed community accommodation but in horrendous institutional venues along the lines of Penally and Napier barracks. Surely the Home Secretary will have thought twice about that, given the shocking outcome of her deliberate decision to cram people into dormitory accommodation at the height of the pandemic, totally against the public health advice she was offered. She put people at risk and hundreds fell ill, but far from being apologetic, she appears to be doubling down.
The Home Secretary talks about clamping down on people smugglers, but the proposals have nothing to do with people smugglers. This is clamping down on refugees themselves and punishing victims of persecution because of how they arrived in the UK, making an example of them, making them miserable and ruining their life chances in an attempt to discourage others from following. It will not work, it will put the system under greater strain and it is utterly immoral. If every Government took the same pass-the-buck approach as this one, the international system of refugee protection would break down entirely. So I plead with Conservative MPs—sensible Conservative MPs—to persuade the Home Secretary to think again. If not, please stop talking about Britain’s proud history of welcoming refugees, because she will have trashed that history, along with the refugee convention.
If that is a disastrous proposal in this speech, the disastrous error of omission is the failure to reform the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or even just acknowledge that review of it is urgent and essential. We are less than a fortnight away from that piece of legislation reaching its 50th birthday. The nature of the drugs trade and drug use has changed dramatically over that time, as has our understanding of it, but our legislative approach is stuck in the past. Across the UK more than 3 million people have taken drugs in the past year, and almost 30,000 young people have been drawn into drug-related gangs. Drug-related deaths are at record levels. Our most deprived communities are suffering most. The Government know all that but resist the required fundamental change in approach. Yes, there is important work to be done through investing in treatment and addressing the underlying issues that have led to drug use in the first place, but it can never be the complete answer while that out-of-date legislation remains in place. International best practice shows that there is a better way.
That international best practice has informed cross-party Committees, including the Select Committee on Health and Social Care and the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, calling for the Act to be reviewed and reformed. Both are clear: responsibility and policy should lie with the Department of Health and Social Care, not the Home Office. This needs a singular, focused, public health approach. Both say that safe drug consumption rooms should be implemented or at least piloted. They save lives and reduce harm; they assist in ensuring that those who need it most can access support and treatment; and they protect the public from antisocial and dangerous public injection and drug-related litter. Both Committees also say that there should at least be consultation about the decriminalisation of possession, because the international evidence shows that it leads to less problematic drug use and less harm as a result. These reductions flow from not just international best practice, but the experiences and insights of those working on the frontline here in the UK and it is a tragedy that the Government will not even debate this. Sensible voices from all parts of the House must push the Government to think again.
In conclusion, the Government’s failure to think again is all too typical of Home Office policymaking under the Conservatives, as exemplified by the Queen’s Speech. This is not policy based on evidence or best practice; it is a rehash of failed policies from the past. Nor is it policy that reflects the values or interests of this country; it is head-in-the-sand policy that helps only the drugs pushers and people smugglers. Nor is it policy in the long-term interests of the UK, never mind Scotland; rather, it serves the perceived short-term political interests of the Home Secretary and her Government. That is why we regret very much what is in the Queen’s Speech and what is strikingly absent from it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Madam Deputy Speaker, it was wonderful to see Her Majesty in the other place last Tuesday giving the Gracious Speech, announcing the Government’s priorities for this year, and I am grateful to you and to the House for giving me the opportunity to participate in this important debate. We have today reached step 3 of the road map out of lockdown, and as we recover from this  dreadful year there seemed to be an added salience to this excellent Queen’s Speech. We will be judged on the success of this programme: on how quickly we can help people return to their normal lives, restoring their liberties, abolishing emergency powers and allowing them and their families the freedoms to go about their daily lives, free from government diktat. In essence, this means that we can reinstate some common sense and personal autonomy, without there being government instruction on every aspect of citizens’ daily lives and without the constant financial bail-outs.
Equally, the culture of the Government must change. It needs to change from one of preventing people from doing things to one of encouraging citizens to take their own action and decide what is best for them and their families. It is very good to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduce the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. The timing of that could not be more urgent, after the completely unacceptable violent antisemitism we saw over the weekend. Regardless of people’s view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is simply no justification whatsoever for antisemitism in our society. My right hon. Friend is also introducing one of the most significant overhauls of the asylum system in decades, which I wholeheartedly agree with. We need a fair, long-term system that will work for this country.
In essence, I believe that education ought to be the number one priority, giving everyone the best possible education at any stage of their life, as it opens up opportunity and careers that can improve their lives. It is the best route out of poverty and should be available to all. An important priority should be to expand support for children of all ages to compensate for their lost learning time during the pandemic. There is a huge programme in the Queen’s Speech to help to recover that lost learning, recognising that the disruption this year has had a major impact on our children’s learnings and lives, and including, importantly, catch-up classes in the summer.
The Government are committed to helping people to buy if they want to and they have committed to an ambitious target of 300,000 new houses by the mid-2020s. However, as a representative of one of the most important and unique areas of outstanding natural beauty, I am extremely concerned about some aspects of the planning Bill. It is the biggest overhaul to the planning system in 70 years. There are some positive proposals in the Bill and the planning system does need modernising. Home ownership needs to be an attainable aim, especially for young people. However, for areas such as the Cotswolds, there needs to be an absolute commitment to protect the AONB.
The proposal to abolish section 106 and the community infrastructure levy should speed up the planning process, and it is important that the money is retained locally so that the infrastructure can be built at the same time as developments. However, the algorithm to calculate housing need was a great concern to many of my constituents, as the Cotswolds had one of the highest proposed increased housing targets anywhere. There is a real danger, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, that it will simply be replaced by a zonal planning system, foreshadowed in the White Paper, which will mean that all land will  have to be designated as either growth for renewal or protected areas, and that could be enforced through the local planning system.
As I have said to the House before, the most important factor is not housing number, but housing mix. The proposals to simplify and speed up local plan making and retain neighbourhood plans where possible are welcome, and the design codes can be specified so it should be possible to protect our unique Cotswolds vernacular. I do not want building to be at the expense of our unique environment and wildlife here in the Cotswolds or anywhere else. I believe strongly that new builds should be sympathetic to the local surroundings and well designed so that they do not become the slums of tomorrow. Above all, they should be built to high environmental standards, such as insulation and electric vehicle charging points, as I set out in my 10-minute rule Bill.
To wrap up, I would like to quickly mention the electoral integrity Bill and giving votes for life. I would also like to welcome the internationally important landmark that is the Environment Bill. Wearing my hat as chair of the all-party group for shooting and conservation, I will be scrutinising carefully the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill for any possible effect on shooting.

Eleanor Laing: Before I call Yvette Cooper, I ought to say that the time limit for Back-Bench speeches will be reduced after the right hon. Lady’s speech to four minutes in an attempt to—

Tim Loughton: Aw!

Eleanor Laing: Yes, I realise that will be some disappointment to the whole House in respect of the speech we were anticipating from the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] I call Yvette Cooper.

Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am hugely grateful to you for not bringing in the four-minute limit straight away, otherwise I would have been gabbling particularly fast to get to my final points.
The purpose of the Queen’s Speech should be to help the country to recover from covid, to rebuild, to heal the scars, and to help people to get back on with their lives, building a fairer, stronger and safer country. I do not believe that this Queen’s Speech does that. For the Home Office, the particular priority is to make sure that we can come through the covid crisis in the first place, to reflect on the way in which the public health border measures simply have not worked in this crisis, and to look at what new framework we ought to have in future, so that lessons can be learned and that the same mistakes are not made again.
Looking back over the past 12 months, we had a period at the beginning of the crisis where for months on end there were no public health border measures in place at all and an estimated 10,000 people with covid came into the country, accelerating the pace and scale of the pandemic in a very damaging way. In summer, the mix of different controls in place still meant that there was a surge in autumn, because they simply did not work effectively. Now, despite all the huge amount  of work that everyone has done supporting the vaccine programme and following restrictions, we have the deeply frustrating situation in which progress has slowed and been put at risk by the failure of the Government’s border measures to prevent the spread of the Indian variant across the country. Throughout all of this, we have seen a pattern. We have seen confusion over which Department is in charge of public health border measures. Is it the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office or the Department for Transport? It has been somebody different each time. We have also seen a lack of transparency. In particular, the Joint Biosecurity Centre has still not published any detailed assessments of India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh—the countries where red list decisions have been taken. We still do not know what data or evidence was drawn on to make those decisions, so all of us think that they were based on the timing of the Prime Minister’s trip to India. We need a new system that has proper transparency, proper accountability and proper clarity in place in order to make improvements for the future.
The Government have an opportunity in the Immigration Bill, which will be scrutinised by the Select Committee and in this place, to address public health border controls, and I urge them to do so. We cannot make the same mistakes again.
Let me briefly touch on some of the other Bills in the Queen’s Speech. We have had a full Second Reading debate on the Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Bill. I simply highlight that I hope to discuss further with the Home Secretary’s colleagues this week potential issues around the failure to have proper domestic abuse prosecutions under the common assault system. There is also a wider problem with the drop in the number of prosecutions. There has been a 30% drop in the number of prosecutions over the past five years at a time when recorded crime has gone up by 40%, which means that victims are not getting justice and that more criminals are getting away with it. I am really worried that, unless action is taken, there could be a crisis in the criminal justice system, because I do not see the measures being taken as part of this Bill to address the matter.
I welcome the possibility of the victims Bill. I hope that we will see that and be able to support it on a cross-party basis. The same is true of the online harms Bill. We have waited a long time for this Bill, so I urge the Home Secretary and her colleagues to get on with the legislation and accept that we will need to amend it. We will not get the perfect framework for regulating on online harms at the outset, but if we wait until we get that, we will be overtaken by events, with the scale of online extremism and online harms.
I am very worried about the voter ID Bill. Nearly half of women over 70 do not have a driving licence—I think those figures are higher in my constituency—and the additional hurdles that many of those women will face to be able to vote will not only make the whole system hugely discriminatory, but disadvantage people who have a right to vote and feel very strongly about it. Not since the suffrage have we seen the clock potentially being turned back on inequality in this way.

Anthony Mangnall: Does the right hon. Lady therefore disagree with the 2014 Electoral Commission report that suggests that we should have voter ID?

Yvette Cooper: I am really concerned about voter ID—I am. I do not think that it is the right way forward, because it will disenfranchise people. The differential impact on older women has not been properly taken into account or considered. Women could end up having to produce ID in order to get a free ID card. Where will they get that ID from? From my constituency, they will have to travel all the way over to Wakefield—we are talking about older women over 70—to meet the electoral returning officer to try to get an ID card. All sorts of additional hurdles will be put in the way of their right to vote.
Finally, I am surprised to find myself in partial agreement with the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) over the planning Bill. There are concerns about taking power away from local communities.
I hope that the Government will come forward with proposals on social care, particularly on valuing social care workers who have been on the frontline of this crisis and who are, too often, undervalued and underpaid. To do something positive about those workers would be an important way to take forward the legacy of the covid crisis.

Karen Bradley: I have no doubt that this will be an exercise in rushing through things for four minutes. I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for her opening remarks and associate myself with what she said about the dreadful scenes of antisemitic abuse we saw on our streets. It is not acceptable, there is no place for it and I absolutely agree with what she said and support her in all she is doing to tackle it.
May I be indulged in congratulating the new police, fire and crime commissioner for Staffordshire, Ben Adams? I have known Ben for many years and know he will do an excellent job, but he steps into the very large shoes of Matthew Ellis, the previous police, fire and crime commissioner, who did extraordinary work in Staffordshire over the past nine years and to whom all of us in my county owe a debt of gratitude.
There was much in the Gracious Speech that I support, but I wish to note a few concerns. Let me start with the commitment in the Gracious Speech
“to provide aid where it has the greatest impact on reducing poverty and alleviating human suffering.”
I support that but, particularly in the world of modern slavery, there are too many examples of programmes that are being cut as a result of the reduction in UK aid. Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary look into that, and particularly at the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery? I have real concerns about the fantastic work that it does and the impact on it.
I will not repeat what has been said about planning reforms; I agree with much that has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
On online harms, I brought in the internet safety strategy many years ago when I was the Culture Secretary, so I am delighted that it is in this year’s Queen’s Speech. I look forward to seeing the Bill, but I urge the Government to take action on access to pornography for under-16s as a matter of urgency. That would address many of the harms that we see in society today.
For the reminder of the short amount of time I have, I wish to speak about the proposals to deal with Northern Ireland and the legacy of the troubles. It is imperative that the issue is addressed, but I cannot overstate how sensitive it is. I understand and share the absolute desire to protect our veterans, but I also have an absolute desire to make sure that the victims of terrorism and other atrocities find out the truth. Some 90% of all deaths in the troubles were at the hands of terrorists, while 10% were at the hands of the armed forces and the police. Although the majority of those deaths were not crimes, some were, as we have seen, and it is quite right that we should find out the truth. We have to remember that these atrocities happened on the streets of the United Kingdom—we were not at war. In fact, every time we say that we were at war, we legitimise what the terrorists did. Our armed forces went in and it was only because of their actions to support the police on our streets that we were able to get the accommodation and compromises of the Belfast Good Friday agreement, but we have to make sure that there is support from the people of Northern Ireland and that the truth is found.
I simply do not have time to cover all the points that I wish to make. The 2014 Stormont House agreement is now seven years old. There is much in that agreement on which we should focus, but we have to have cross-community support in Northern Ireland for any proposals that are put forward. I intend to speak on this matter again. It is important that we get it right for the sake of the victims of the troubles.

John Martin McDonnell: After 11 years of harsh austerity and a year in which the covid pandemic has resulted in such a scale of human suffering, the Queen’s Speech should have been a paradigm-shifting intervention in which were established a new set of ideals upon which the future of our society was at least envisioned. Instead, it was crowded with little more than base, grubby political manoeuvres aimed at corrupting the electoral system and suppressing opposition. It failed completely to capture the spirit of the age.
The pandemic pressure-tested our society and exposed the appalling impact of a decade of gross underfunding of our NHS and social care sector. Covid has laid bare the millions who are in poverty and a social security system that has provided no security. Austerity fatigue and the pandemic are prompting a paradigm shift. The old neoliberal dominance of trickle-down economics, the market always knowing best and “private good, public bad” is under serious challenge. Even this Government have been forced through political expediency to synthetically get with the programme. That is why this Queen’s Speech is so full of rhetoric but so easily exposed as lacking in substance.
The pandemic has created a renewed sense of social solidarity. There is a greater feeling that we all stand or fall together and that everyone should have a right to a decent job, education, a home, health and social care, and an income to secure good quality of life. This should not depend on where people live or what their background is. There is a greater belief that the distribution of rewards in our society should be based on the social value of the contribution that a person makes to our community and not solely on its market value. The mismatch in the  Queen’s Speech between these values of our age and what the Government propose is starkly exemplified.
There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech that will realistically ensure that the NHS receives the funding to cope with backlog of treatments or, especially, to deal with the impact of long covid. It maintains the pay cuts to NHS staff and public sector workers, forcing many into absolute penury. Social care reform is delayed yet again. We await the outcome of further discussions in the autumn but doubt whether anything productive will come from the Government.
There is nothing to give hope of a secure home to many people, nothing to address low pay and poverty on a scale that we have not seen for a generation, including the rising numbers of the homeless back on our streets and the renewed threat of eviction that is affecting so many of our constituents who rent their properties.
The existential threat of climate change is met with nothing more than press releases and, obscenely, international aid is cut and the Government fail to back Biden’s patent-waiving campaign to save lives as the covid pandemic ravages the global south.
This is a Queen’s Speech that does not just fail to meet the challenges of our times, but drags us back to mundane politicking, providing no sense of hope or direction at a time when our people are in desperate need, having suffered 12 months of tragic loss of life and 11 years of austerity pay cuts and the undermining of their public services. This Queen’s Speech is a grotesque disappointment and has failed the community yet again.

Tim Loughton: I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but if he had been a television programme, it would have been followed by a public information notice saying, “If you have been affected by any of the issues in this programme, here is a helpline to ring.”
How on earth to address the dazzling cornucopia of welcome legislation in the Queen’s Speech in just four minutes? Let me just flag up some of the measures I particularly welcome. I welcome the measure on the best start in life, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and the exceedingly valuable work that has been put in, which the Government will now take up.
I will not repeat, but endorse the concerns about the planning legislation that virtually every Conservative Member has mentioned. We do not level up by levelling and concreting over the diminishing open spaces, particularly in the south-east of England.
I welcome the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill. The ban on animal trophies and provisions on pet theft, kept animals, cat micro-chipping and fur imports show that we do not need the European Union to promote some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, as we do and will continue to do in this country.
I welcome the draft online safety Bill. We need social media platforms to get serious about preventing abusive, extremist and bullying content. However, we also need to address economic harms and exposure to fraud and I ask the Government to look at ways of including that in the legislation.
I want to focus on one aspect of the Home Office measures: the much needed overhaul of the immigration and asylum system. I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s recent new plan for immigration. I have spoken about this before, because all we need, above all, is an immigration system that is fair, fast, flexible, family friendly and beneficial to the UK and to the many people escaping danger and persecution overseas. We have a proud record of helping and encouraging those who want to make a big contribution to the UK, but too often our immigration system is bureaucratic and complicated, as the Windrush situation showed. It takes too long and people’s lives are left in limbo; it does not treat people as individuals; and there are too many taking advantage of our openness and jumping the queue ahead of those with a genuine claim to come to the UK.
I have always supported tougher measures against those who have the money to fuel organised crime gangs facilitating dangerous passages across the channel or people smuggling through other routes. There need to be implications. I welcome the Home Secretary’s comment that if someone comes by an illegal route they are not treated on a par with someone who has applied legitimately and through legal means such as refugee agencies and refugee camps. It is just not fair otherwise. In return, we need an immigration system that is streamlined, affordable —not a revenue generator for the Home Office—and works quickly to get people to a place of safety sustainably and deals with those who do not have a future in the UK. We urgently need safe and legal routes and family reunification schemes to replace Dublin. I think this is a trade-off that gains the support of the public.
I specifically ask the Home Secretary to look at the plight of a group of young migrants who have come to Britain, represented by the excellent We Belong organisation, who find themselves in limbo: no fewer than 332,000 children and young people growing up legally in the UK without any formal immigration status who migrated here as children predominantly from Commonwealth countries and know only the UK as their home. We heard articulate witnesses before the Home Affairs Committee. They came here with their families and their immigration status has not been settled, which becomes a problem when they reach adulthood and want to go to university or get a job. They have to spend £2,593 in legal fees to apply for leave to remain and then to renew their status every 30 months over a 10-year period. These people are British. They want to be British. They are contributing and want to do so in a formalised way. We therefore need to do better by them. I welcome the fact that the Under- Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), met them recently. I hope that in the immigration legislation coming forward we can give them the settlement and surety that they deserve.

Diana R. Johnson: As today’s theme is “Safe streets for all”, I start by paying tribute to Humberside’s former police and crime commissioner, Keith Hunter, who worked hard to develop the PCC role and reversed the post-2010 Tory and Lib Dem cuts in police numbers. I fear that Hull’s inner-city policing challenges may be less of a priority for his successor. There is little in the Queen’s Speech  that will help us in Hull to combat antisocial behaviour which blights the lives of so many after the austerity decade in areas such as Orchard Park, Beverley Road and Princes Avenue.
As we face the economic challenges post covid and post Brexit, Hull people will be looking to the Government to make good on the promises of levelling up. After a decade of talk about the northern powerhouse and rebalancing the economy, we have little to show for it that has not actually been achieved through local effort. In fact, in those years, Tory Ministers blocked Hull getting rail electrification and imposed some of the country’s deepest public sector funding cuts on the city. Now, the various pots of levelling-up funding available, even to favoured areas, do not amount in scale to the sustained investment that would be really transformational —as seen, for example, in London’s Docklands in previous decades. These pots of money, which set towns against cities and regions against regions, do not even compensate for the funding cuts since 2010. In Hull we need investment but not the gerrymandering of the towns fund or the one-size-fits-all, made-in-Whitehall mayoral model of devolution that Ministers insist on. I agree with genuine devolution in principle, but we must let the people of Hull and the East Riding have their say on what they want devolution to look like for it to be meaningful.
I want to conclude with a couple of positive suggestions that I hope would command cross-party support. First, one step forward on levelling up for the most deprived areas would be to strengthen the Dormant Assets Bill that was introduced in Parliament last week and to use the £880 million of capital liberated for a community wealth fund to improve life chances, skills and the quality of life in neighbourhoods such as north Hull’s Bransholme.
Secondly, I welcome the promise in the Queen’s Speech to honour and strengthen the armed forces covenant, placing it in law and hopefully extending good work with veterans. However, working shoulder to shoulder with our armed forces this past year to get the country through the covid pandemic and roll out the vaccine has been our brilliant NHS and social care workforce. We should remember that by December 2020, nine months into the pandemic, some 850 NHS and social care staff had died from covid. Never again should these staff face the prospect of needlessly risking their own health, even their own lives, in the course of doing their job through a lack of PPE or failings in testing. The Home Secretary talked about the police covenant in her opening remarks. I hope that the Government will consider instituting a national health, social care and emergency services covenant on similar lines to the existing armed forces covenant—enshrined in law, fully funded and in place as soon as is practicable. These workers deserve much more than a hand clap on the doorstep on a Thursday night, a medal or, now, the prospect of a real-terms pay cut. They have been there for us—all of us—and now we need to be there for them.

Bob Neill: In the time available, I can touch on only a few matters relating to the Queen’s Speech. The return of the Environment Bill is very welcome. It is ambitious and important. I hope that we will proceed swiftly to that and to our chairmanship and presidency of COP26. I hope that we  will go further in one matter, though—that is, air quality. I hope that it is possible to move forward swiftly to make sure that the PM2.5 levels are put in line with World Health Organisation standards. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), made warm comments about that on Report in the last Session and I hope that we can return to it.
The Building Safety Bill is critical. We know that it is a vastly important issue, but it is also important that we do not wait to deal with the issue of those leaseholders who are trapped now in houses and flats blighted by Grenfell-type cladding. We need to move more swiftly than purely legislation in relation to that.
On planning, we need to build more homes. We need to modernise our planning law, but we should not do that at the expense of proper, democratic involvement from communities who will be affected by the new proposals. We must get the balance right. Harold Macmillan built 300,000 homes within a system of checks and balances. We should be able to do the same and get the balance properly correct.
On criminal justice matters, the return of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is important. Much of it is good. We need to deal heavily and robustly with those who commit egregious offences, but I welcome the fact that, within the Bill, there are also provisions for a more sophisticated and nuanced set of sentences for those who, frankly, get into problems with the criminal justice system because of chaotic lifestyles and background difficulties, and who can be redeemed and turned around. A properly positive one nation conservatism, which I adhere to, will recognise both sides. We must protect the public but we must also encourage those who can change their lives and move forward. I hope that we can look at the details of this as we go forward.
The victims Bill is important, too. Not enough is said about victims in our criminal justice system. Certainly, the Justice Committee stands ready to engage in pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill with the Government.
Let me add two caveats. A proper criminal justice system involves the integrity and independence of those who administer it—we have that with our judiciary at the highest level—but it also requires consent. The jury system has ensured the consent of the populous throughout these times. We are right to modernise all our court procedures, but we should be careful about the idea of online juries. Provision may be appropriate in certain circumstances of urgency, but we should look carefully at the risk that they become, as some judges have suggested, spectators rather participants. Let us move with care.
On judicial review, the right of the citizen to challenge the state is critical—it is fundamental. We can, again, always modernise and review procedures, but the ability to hold the state and its actors to account should not be undermined at the end of the day, so I suggest that we should proceed with caution and moderation in those reforms. The outcome of the Faulks commission was sensible. I have no problem with looking at other issues, but I suspect that it would be wise not to rush on matters that are critical to the checks and balances that affect not only our system, but the relationship between the state and the citizen and individual.

Eleanor Laing: After the next speaker, the limit on Back-Bench speeches will be reduced to three minutes—but with four minutes, I call Alistair Carmichael.

Alistair Carmichael: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to you.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who made a very thoughtful contribution. He said a lot in four minutes, characterised by the fact that, of course, he knows what he is talking about, because he has not just a political understanding but professional experience of criminal justice. In particular, when he spoke of sentencing and how rehabilitation should be at the heart of our prison system, there was nothing he said with which I could disagree personally or politically.
When listening to the Home Secretary, however, it struck me that if we ever wanted to generate a bob or two, we could bring out a new parlour game called “Who said it and when?” because there were points in her speech when I felt that I could have been listening to just about any Home Secretary that I have heard speak at the Dispatch Box in the last 20 years. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Home Secretaries stand there talking about “Cracking down on this” or “Getting tough on that”. It is always the rhetoric of toughness, whereas we know that, in fact, getting things right in criminal justice is often about doing things that are difficult—and difficult to explain in the tabloid press—but that are also right and effective.
We heard as much tonight when the Home Secretary talked about setting centrally driven targets in order to improve policing. Centrally driven targets will not improve policing; it is community policing, rooted in the community that it is there to serve, that will improve policing and produce the outcomes. We have heard this for decades: the rhetoric goes on, yet year after year our streets and communities become less safe for our people, and the rhetoric does not change.
I also discern in the Queen’s Speech an emerging pattern from this Government, and it is one that disturbs and concerns me. Yet again, I am afraid, the Conservatives have been pleased to style themselves in opposition as liberals, and perhaps even occasionally as libertarians, but they are increasingly authoritarian in government. The moves in the carry-over Bill in relation to the right to protest are misjudged and ill-conceived, and I think that, ultimately, they will be counterproductive.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to the question of judicial review. Any Government who believe in the rule of law should have absolutely no difficulty putting the decisions that they have taken before the court. If those decisions are right and legal, they should have no problem in the courts; and if they are not right and legal, they should want to change them in any event.
Time is short and there is one point that I wanted to put on the record. I am in total agreement with the Home Secretary’s comments condemning the scenes on our streets and online in relation to antisemitism, specifically in London. I think I come at the Israel-Palestine question from a rather different point of view from that held by the Home Secretary, but even for somebody who is as  staunch a supporter of the Palestinian cause as I am, there can be no place in this debate for what we saw, and we in this country help nobody in Palestine by evincing sentiments that are antisemitic. On that, at least, I hope there will be a measure of consensus across the House.

Eleanor Laing: It is very good to hear the right hon. Gentleman mention consensus in that respect. As a rabbi in my constituency was brutally attacked yesterday—many people may be aware of this—I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having just articulated what I would have liked to say myself if I were able to do so. I am delighted to tell him that Essex police have arrested two young men in connection with the attack on the rabbi, which was an absolute disgrace.
We now go to a limit of three minutes, I am afraid, and I call Caroline Nokes.

Caroline Nokes: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are right to point out that intolerance, harassment, racism and abuse, of whatever sort, are intolerable in this country. I am pleased to hear of the arrests that you mentioned.
I was also pleased to hear about many of the things that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary identified in her opening remarks. I was delighted to hear that she had met Our Streets Now, a really effective and energetic campaign group that is working so hard to see public sexual harassment made a crime. I very much hope that we will see real action on that, either in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill or in separate legislation.
Public sexual harassment affects not just young women, but children: 66% of young women aged between 14 and 21 have experienced it. Fourteen-year-olds—children—in their school uniforms being sexually harassed is not something that we should tolerate. It is not currently a specific crime, but it should be. Making our streets safer is not just about more street lights, more CCTV or more police on the streets. When I was a local councillor in 1999, more than 21 years ago, we talked about designing out crime, yet there are still young women afraid to walk on our streets. Relationships and sex education should not stop at 16, because it is crucial that in the sixth form our young people understand consent and what it means.
Of course, it is not just about making our physical streets safer. We also have to make the online space safer, so that comments such as the horrific ones we saw over the weekend can be tracked down by the social media companies that host them and action can be taken. I was delighted to meet the Football Association a few weeks ago to talk about racism in football and the harassment that players face online every single day. The FA used the analogy that the problem is not just in the chair, but in the computer. It is critical that we use our new online safety legislation to ensure that those companies bear the brunt of the responsibility to help police and law enforcement to identify the perpetrators and stamp such behaviour out.
I welcome the review of how rape victims are treated. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was correct to say that we need to overhaul the way in which we  treat victims. I would argue that not just rape victims but all female victims of crime need to be empowered to have the confidence to come forward and report it, knowing that their case will be treated seriously by all law enforcement.

Karen Buck: So much of the legislation and policy that we discuss in this House is experienced by people through the filter of local government: it is experienced locally rather than through a national framework. Councils, which are at the forefront of dealing with so many of the challenges that we face, have stepped up, particularly in this last year of covid, and delivered on everything from supporting the vaccination programme and vulnerable people shielding to the Everyone In homelessness programme and so much more.
It is depressing to see that once again the Queen’s Speech reinforces the existing trend that councils are not rewarded for the service that they provide to their local communities. They are treated with indifference, stripped of the resources that they need and increasingly stripped of the vital defensive functions that they can fulfil in supporting their communities. They have lost core funding of more than £16 billion over the past decade; 60p out of every £1 that the Government provided a decade ago is no longer provided.
We have heard many times, from Conservative Members as much as from the Opposition, that councils’ defence of communities through their planning role is being seriously undermined, as we have already seen with permitted development, and will be undermined further. Where we want swift action from the Government, we have seen delays in everything from the protection of leaseholders to building safety four years after Grenfell, with no progress on social care at all—and so much more.
I want to spend a minute on community safety. Again, local government is very much at the forefront, from community cohesion in the light of the appalling events that we saw over this weekend to supporting safety on our streets and working with our local police. Sadly, county lines gangs and serious youth violence do not get the attention in this Chamber that I think they deserve. I am pleased that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will place a new statutory duty on local authorities and partners to prevent serious violence. I hope that the widest possible approach will be taken and that it will be fully funded, given that youth services, with their vital preventive role, have been stripped of 70% of their funding over the past 10 years.
However, despite all these unmet needs, the Government are giving priority to dealing with a problem that we all know hardly exists through the proposals to introduce a new layer of bureaucracy for voting that will cost councils tens of millions of pounds. I say to the Minister that this is not a problem that deserves our attention, and it is certainly not a problem that deserves the resources of local government. Can that money instead be devoted to where it belongs: community safety, and supporting young people into the diversion and prevention activities that we need to keep our streets safe?

Richard Drax: Before I start, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There is much to be welcomed in the Queen’s Speech, which comes after electoral success across the  country, and I welcome to the House our new colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer). However, time is short, so let me press on.
I would be negligent if I did not start with an ask for my beautiful constituency of South Dorset. We hear much about levelling up, and I sincerely hope that that does not just mean in the north, much as it needs the investment. It is crucial that we in South Dorset attract jobs that offer a more secure future, not least because parts of the seat rank among the most deprived 10% in the country. The Government do not create jobs, but well-targeted investment does attract the private sector, which employs people to do the work. To this end, a panel of high-profile businessmen and businesswomen from Weymouth and Portland have drawn up a business plan with an ask of £250 million. Chaired by Portland port’s inspirational chief executive, Bill Reeves, the wish list includes a short relief road and moneys to repair the harbour and marina sea walls and Weymouth’s sea defences. Without these essential works, the Environment Agency is unable to give the green light to much-needed redevelopment around our picturesque harbour.
Secondly, I have noted that today’s debate is called Safe Streets for All. I give credit to, and thank, Dorset police for their endeavour in this regard. We all want our streets to be safe, but the reduction in police numbers and the changing nature of crime, with more online offences, have led to fewer bobbies on the beat. More are coming and more still are promised, which is welcome, but worryingly, the budget cuts and some hard decisions have resulted in the closure of around 50% of Britain’s police stations in the past decade. The physical presence of a police station is a deterrent, a source of comfort to the public, and a refuge of last resort. Call me a luddite, but for our streets to be even safer, these closures must be reversed as a matter of urgency.
I will touch quickly on Northern Ireland, where I served on three operational tours. I and many colleagues in this place, and thousands of veterans outside it, have been waiting patiently for a Government Bill that will prevent our former soldiers being chased to the grave. Regrettably, I do not see one: just more talk. This is simply not good enough, and I urge the Government to bring forward a Bill as fast as they can.
Finally, no more lockdowns, please. I think we are all fed up with being told what to do, when to do it, and with whom. Enough, Madam Deputy Speaker; enough.

Tom Randall: The theme of today’s debate is safe streets for all, and with the events of the weekend, my thoughts turn in particular to those British citizens who happen to be Jewish. The rights and wrongs of the Arab-Israeli conflict will no doubt continue to be debated at great length, but what we saw at the weekend was not part of that debate. I am pleased to hear that arrests have been made, and I join the Prime Minister and Home Secretary in condemning the shameful racism that we have seen, which rightly has caused shock and disgust.
In Gedling, we have fortunately not seen such behaviour, but crime remains a general concern. I will continue to support the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and I particularly welcome the increased sentences for those who assault emergency workers. Cases of burglary and antisocial behaviour fell during lockdown when  many were confined to their homes, but there have been cases recently, and I pay tribute to the neighbourhood police team in Gedling for their efforts during a very difficult time. Thanks to this Government’s recruitment programme, there are now over two dozen more police officers on the streets of Gedling, and they are doing great work. Many have been assigned to Operation Reacher, knocking down drug dealers’ doors and making a difference to the lives of Gedling residents, a direct consequence of decisions made by this Government.
In her opening speech, the Home Secretary mentioned police and crime commissioners and I would like to add my congratulations to Caroline Henry on her election as PCC for Nottinghamshire. She was an excellent candidate and will be an excellent commissioner, and while, of course, I do not know her as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) I look forward to working with her during her term; she is bringing great energy and fresh ideas to the role.
At the heart of the Queen’s Speech was a restatement of the Government’s commitment to levelling up. On that theme, I look forward to working alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), who has just been elected leader of Nottinghamshire County Council and who I am sure will bring great leadership to the role. I send my best wishes to his predecessor, Councillor Kay Cutts, on her retirement; she can look back with pride on working and delivering for the people of Nottinghamshire. It has been a difficult year for Gedling’s businesses and I look forward to working with the officers and members of Gedling Borough Council to submit a high-quality bid for the levelling-up fund to help our high streets.
We must have not only safer streets, but safer elections in this country, and I look forward to exploring issues around security of the ballot when the electoral integrity Bill comes before the House. I believe that our voting procedures can be improved and it is possible, as Northern Ireland has shown, to demand identification to vote without affecting turnout.
I could address much more but do not have sufficient time. However, I look forward to considering the Government’s measures in further detail in this Session.

Stephen Timms: I first want to deplore the loss of the employment Bill. It was announced in the December 2019 Queen’s Speech but entirely omitted this time. The Work and Pensions Committee report on the Department’s response to coronavirus recommended last June that the Government should bring forward the employment Bill as soon as possible to increase legal protection for people in low-paid work and the gig economy, so last Friday, with the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), I wrote to the Secretary of State asking whether the Government still plan to legislate in this area, and, if so, when.
In opening the debate the Home Secretary spoke about the online safety Bill, but there is a gaping omission from that Bill. In our pension scams report of last month, the Work and Pensions Committee recommended  legislating against online investment fraud, but it appears that the Bill will address only user-generated content. We understand that online scam adverts are to be dealt with in a separate initiative, which, so far as I can tell, has made no tangible progress at all since it was announced two years ago. It will take perhaps a further two or three years before it delivers anything.
Campaigner Mark Taber gave evidence to the Select Committee. He found the compare-uk-bonds.co.uk fake comparison site on Google and reported it to Google in May. It stayed up until December. He has just heard from a recently bereaved woman who lost over £200,000 after finding that fake site on Google in September. Google should have acted in May, but did not. People think that if a site is on Google, it must have been vetted, but it will not have been. Google takes money from scammers and then also takes money from regulators to warn about the scammers we find on Google.
It is not just my Select Committee saying this: industry is saying it, and the Governor of the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority are saying that this Bill must legislate to deal with this problem. Martin Lewis, the money saving expert, said that
“the Government has stumbled at the first fence, by not including scams in the Online Safety Bill.”
In letting crooks and scammers continue to ruin people’s lives, Ministers are being abjectly soft on this appalling crime. They could still do the right thing and legislate in this Bill, and I urge them to do so.
In September 2018 I moved an amendment to the Offensive Weapons Bill in Committee to ban the purchase online of weapons that cannot lawfully be bought in a shop in the UK. I am pleased that that at least is in the online safety Bill this time.

Neil Hudson: I welcome the measures in the Queen’s Speech to support policing, which will not only secure safer streets for all, but go more widely across the country to cover rural crime. In Cumbria, we have seen the re-election of our Conservative police and crime commissioner, Peter McCall. I pay tribute to Peter, to our chief constable, Michelle Skeer, and to all of Cumbria police for their efforts to keep us safe, especially with the added challenges of the pandemic.
I very much welcome the Government’s plans to tackle rural, wildlife and animal-related crime. The Government have announced measures in this speech to improve animal welfare, both here and globally. As a veterinary surgeon, that is something I welcome strongly. The action plan for animal welfare contains much-awaited measures to recognise animal sentience in law and plans to tackle puppy smuggling, pet theft, ear-cropping in dogs and livestock worrying.
The plans to end live exports of animals for fattening or slaughter are welcome, but in parallel, we need to help the farming sector to adapt. We need to bolster the local abattoir network to reduce travelling times and distances so that UK animals can be born, reared and slaughtered locally. By promoting high animal welfare standards here in the UK, and by using animal welfare chapters in our free trade deals, we can be a beacon for the rest of the world.
It would be an excellent use of some of our international aid budget to help farmers in the developing world to farm and rear animals more sustainably. On that note, I welcome the comments last week in the Chamber from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the UK economy will be on a stable footing in the coming months. Accordingly, I urge the Government to reinstate the UK’s commitment to 0.7% of GNI being spent on international aid as soon as possible.
The Queen’s Speech also contains welcome measures to protect and support our environment through the Environment Bill. I strongly support the Government’s plans to focus on improving mental health support and provision in our country, which has come into sharp relief in the pandemic.
In addition, I welcome plans to improve connectivity, not only physically with buses and trains, but virtually with improved broadband and mobile phone coverage. The measures on the lifetime skills guarantee and flexible access to education are to be applauded. I look forward to working with the Government for the learners of Cumbria.
Our Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry on land-based education raised serious questions over Askham Bryan’s planned exit from Newton Rigg and Cumbria. I reiterate our call for the Government to confirm whether Askham Bryan is within its legal rights to sell the college and its assets. If it is, we are asking the Government to ensure that it does the right thing so that we can secure a long-term future for education in Cumbria.
In conclusion, I welcome the proposals in the Queen’s Speech. They are progressive and ethical, and I look forward to working with Government.

Siobhain McDonagh: I would like to raise the issue of the planning Bill. I do so not to exacerbate the problems with the Bill on the Government Benches, but to merely point out that it will not achieve the Government’s intention to build 300,000 properties each year. The last year in which 300,000 properties were constructed was in the mid-1960s, when half those properties were being built by councils and housing associations. Without a real effort to build social housing, those numbers cannot be achieved. If we continue to rely on one of the most expensive forms of production in the world, reliant on crumbs from the developers’ table to get that number of units, then the hopes and aspirations of hundreds of thousands of people in this country will not be met.
There is a connection between the lack of social housing and the exponential increase in the number of people living in temporary accommodation. We have 100,000 children living in temporary accommodation right now. What does temporary mean? To me, it means maybe six months or a year. To the families in my constituency placed in temporary accommodation, we are talking about four, five or maybe six years, and possibly longer for those families entering such accommodation now.
Many people will have heard me mention that there is a code of guidance, which states that temporary accommodation should be provided to families who are homeless, that it should be provided in their home borough, and that it should allow people to continue in their work and children to continue at their schools. But   as constituency MPs, we know—particularly those of us in London—that that is not happening. People are being sent hundreds of miles away, breaking their families, their support structures, their work and their education, with enormous social impact.
I say to the Government, not as a partisan message: please consider introducing a formal legal regulator for temporary accommodation—an Ofsted of housing, if you like, that will ensure that local authorities live by the existing code of guidance. Only if councils know that there is a regulator about to come in will they try to address the problem that they have. If we wish to support those families, but also to reduce the spend and the consequences of the shocking temporary accommodation that families are currently living in, we need a regulator to be there to watch.

Imran Ahmad Khan: This Queen’s Speech is unique in the aims and objectives that it seeks to achieve and the challenges that it faces. Covid-19 has demonstrated the need for a strong and flexible police force that not only seeks to make our streets safer but supports local communities and the most vulnerable. I welcome this Queen’s Speech, which assists in ensuring that our police are better equipped to achieve both those objectives.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a vital vehicle through which those ambitions will be realised. It will overhaul our justice system to ensure that our police and courts have the tools and resources necessary to tackle the most heinous of crimes. Extending whole-life orders for the premeditated murder of a child is but one example of a tougher stance when it comes to sentencing those who commit the most appalling crimes.
New legislation will also be brought forward to further support victims and provide the tools necessary to tackle cyber-crime and prevent online harms. A draft victims Bill will be introduced to strengthen the rights of victims through the establishment of the new victims code. The draft online safety Bill will protect internet users, especially children, and ensure that companies are responsible for their users’ safety online.
This array of legislation will ensure that punishments for crimes are proportionate and representative of their severity. It will ensure that victims of crime are properly supported and that individuals are protected in their communities and online while our inalienable rights are defended.
Alongside new legislation, additional funding has been made available to ensure that sufficient officers are recruited. Police funding has increased by £636 million this year, meaning that total police funding is up to £15.8 billion for the financial year 2021-22. That means that West Yorkshire police, which is proudly headquartered here in Wakefield, will receive £511.9 million this financial year, compared with £484.5 million last year. I welcome that increased budget and look forward to more officers being recruited to patrol the streets of Wakefield.
In conclusion, while I welcome the introduction of the Nightingale courts to deal with the backlog of cases, and the modernisation of courts to deliver swifter justice, more must be done to ensure that people have permanent access to justice regardless of where they live. Wakefield is the largest city in the country without  a magistrates court inside its boundary, meaning that my constituents are forced to travel out of the city to access justice. I applaud the Home Secretary and her—

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Gentleman has run over time.

Sara Britcliffe: It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate today, just as it is a great pleasure to welcome a new Conservative police and crime commissioner to Lancashire. The people of our county have once again put their trust in this Conservative Government, and I know that our new PCC, Andrew Snowden, will deliver for them. I also want to take a moment to thank all the officers and police staff who have worked tirelessly to keep us safe during the pandemic and to enforce the covid rules. Lancashire is incredibly lucky to have you.
Across Hyndburn and Haslingden, people want to feel safe when they go out. They want the streets to be secure and the police to be in their neighbourhoods tackling crime and protecting the public. That is why the Government are working through a legislative programme that is tough on criminals, keeps our streets safe and delivers on the public’s priorities, in marked contrast to the Opposition. But rather than dwell on the many and varied shortcomings of the Opposition, I want to raise just two points on which I would be grateful for some engagement from the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland).
The first is the question of self-funding through council tax, which now makes up an average of 34% of police funding. In some parts of the country where there is a larger and wealthier council tax base, PCCs are able to raise funds more easily through the precept and therefore recruit more police officers. However, some areas with lower tax bases that cannot do that as easily also have more areas of deprivation and therefore more policing need. Currently, the system allows for areas with a lower level of need to raise more funds for officers, but the central Government funding formula that has been used over many years does not reflect this. I believe that any changes to the funding formula must reflect social and economic factors if we are to deliver on our levelling-up agenda.
My second point is more technical and relates to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, particularly sections 135 and 136. Section 135 allows the police to enter a home and take someone to a place of safety so that a mental health assessment can be done. The police must have a warrant from a magistrates court allowing them to enter the home. An application for a warrant must be made by an “approved mental health professional”, who must also accompany the police to the home. This section is used in a pre-planned way and allows the police to look after people who could be a danger or who are unable to look after themselves. So a person can be removed from an address under section 135, but not under section 136. Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider an amendment to the Mental Health Act to give the police the extra flexibility to allow  people who are a danger to themselves or others to be placed in a secure and caring environment quickly so that a mental health assessment by a professional can take place? I would really appreciate some engagement from him on those two points.

Dawn Butler: This Queen’s Speech was supposed to be part of levelling up. Instead, I am sure that it has come as a shock to many that this Government are intent on destroying our democracy. In the time available to me, I want to focus on just one aspect of the Queen’s Speech, as highlighted by the United Nations. On 6 August 2018, the UN stated in its report on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance:
“Once they are in government, nationalist populists often deploy a range of tactics to disenfranchise groups…These might include, for example…imposing specific photo identification and other requirements that disproportionately exclude marginalized groups from voting.”
It is clear for all to see that this Tory Government’s plans for voter ID will result in voter suppression, and it is incumbent on us as a country and as a Parliament to take back control. The public are not blind to this Government’s attempts to roll back democracy, and they are challenging them at every opportunity, whether it is the proroguing of Parliament so that a few Ministers can make decisions, or giving themselves Henry VIII powers to limit the powers of the courts, or even the recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which includes draconian powers on where, when and how people can protest. This Government have rolled back democracy at every step, but people have still been on the streets fighting them. And let us not forget the procurement contracts awarded without parliamentary oversight.
This is all happening in plain sight, but be assured that, slowly but surely, we will take back control from this authoritarian nationalist Government. Even those on the Minister’s side of the House have spoken out. The former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), has said that this is a
“solution in pursuit of a non-existent problem”.
We are currently faced with a Government who seek power just so that they can give their mates millions of pounds of public money. The Government want to make millions for their mates while those who are just about managing have to go to food banks or are fired and then rehired on worse terms and conditions. This is not a fair way to live; it is unfair.
We should be modernising voting and expanding the franchise. We should allow votes at 16, enable people to vote at train stations and other places of convenience and explore online voting. It is time to start including, not excluding, the electorate. Britain’s democracy belongs to all of us, not just the rich and the millionaires. We must take back control and defend our democracy.

Anthony Mangnall: I would say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), but it is a complete load of nonsense to suggest that we are subduing democracy in any way. If she looked at the Electoral Commission report of 2014, she would note that it very sensibly suggested voter ID.  Indeed, in Northern Ireland, votes have not been supressed; they have continued and been allowed, and it has been a very successful roll-out.
I welcome the measures outlined in the Queen’s Speech, which sets a clear and bold agenda for this parliamentary Session. In the time allowed, I would like to draw attention to a few points. First, on rail and bus reform, at long last we are to see a White Paper that will join up our trains, buses and boats. Hopefully, it will be delivered on time so that I can go back to my constituents and tell them how they can traverse the area more ably.
Secondly, the skills and post-16 education Bill will enable further education colleges, such as South Devon College in my constituency, to help people in every age group have the opportunity to innovate, create businesses and retrain. That is hugely important.
Thirdly, I completely welcome the procurement Bill, which I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) will have a significant hand in, given his previous work on this subject. By addressing procurement, we will not only save taxpayers’ money but put it where it needs to go more effectively.
Like other Members, I would like to speak about the planning Bill. It will come as no surprise that I am, at present, heavily against it. We need to entrench ourselves in localism. The Conservative party has stood for localism. We must listen to what local residents want for where we develop. That means following neighbourhood plans and addressing the issues relating to building on brownfield sites, ensuring we protect our green spaces, ending land banking, and building in an environmentally friendly way. Those are the things that the people of Totnes and south Devon want to see done. Of course, they want affordable homes and homes that they can rent. All of that can be achieved, and I look forward to the opportunity to helpfully reform the planning Bill when it comes to this place.
Of course, today is for talking about crime and safer streets. I congratulate Alison Hernandez, our police and crime commissioner, on her re-election—how lucky we are in Devon and Cornwall to have her re-elected. She has a firm agenda of not only keeping Devon the second-lowest crime area in the United Kingdom, with an ambition to make it No. 1, but introducing schemes such as the councillor advocate scheme, putting new officers on our streets and delivering a safe environment for all people, whether they be residents or visitors.

Jon Trickett: In a striking opening comment in the Queen’s Speech debates, the Prime Minister remarked that genius can be found everywhere in our country—of course, you and I know that that is especially true in God’s own country, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we will draw a veil over that. He also said that opportunity is lacking throughout the country. We arrive, then, at the central thrust of the Queen’s Speech: the idea that we should level up. There are two things to say about that. The first is that we have to will the means as well as the ends, and the Government have failed to do that, as I will describe in a moment or two. Secondly, we have to analyse why the country needs levelling up in the way that the Prime Minister described.
Three aspects of the Queen’s Speech address the levelling-up agenda, and none of them works for Yorkshire. First, the Prime Minister wants infrastructure, but he   must then explain why seven times as much is spent on transport in London as it is in parts of Yorkshire. Infrastructure takes decades to introduce, and people in our area and elsewhere will feel that it is jam tomorrow and that no difference will be made now.
Secondly, there is the idea of education and skills. But then the Prime Minister has to explain why, over the past 10 years, the Government cuts to school funding in my constituency were 16 times higher than the cuts in his constituency.
The final point that the Prime Minister makes is about IT, which he says is the way forward. The fact of the matter is that in my constituency and other parts of Yorkshire, the broadband speed is less than half of what it is in his constituency. For all those reasons, we can understand how it came about that output per worker in our area is half the level that it is in London, that wages in my constituency are £300 a week less than they are in the Prime Minister’s, that there are twice as many top jobs in administration and management in his constituency than mine, and that children born today in my constituency—according to his Social Mobility Commission—face a future that is much more difficult than it is in other parts of the country.
The Prime Minister climbed his way to the top by arguing for a turbocharged inequality, and now he is trying to paper over the cracks of the very inequality his party helped to create. This Queen’s Speech does not address the central problems facing my community and many others I try to speak for in this House every day—it papers over the cracks. We require a Government who will transform our country, create a rupture with the way in which this British establishment has ruled our country for the past two to three generations, and build a fairer, more just and more democratic society.

Allan Dorans: It is now more than 40 years since the first reclaim the night protest in Leeds in 1977, when women marched in response to being told to stay at home because of the Yorkshire ripper’s murders. Little has changed in who we focus our attention on when men commit such heinous crimes. With the tragic death of Sarah Everard just a few months ago, women were again told to stay at home for their safety. The focus remains on what women should do to protect themselves, rather than on men and their criminal actions and behaviours.
Street harassment, verbal or physical, against all women is at an epidemic level. In 2018, Plan International UK found that 66% of women had experienced unwanted attention or sexual harassment in a public place. Those figures increase for trans men and minority genders, who are twice as likely to be victims of a violent crime as cis people, according to the Office for National Statistics. The focus for too long has shifted attention away from men. We must ask why men are harassing, abusing and being violent towards women and girls.
Violence against women is a social problem that is indelibly rooted in masculinity. Reshaping masculinity at a young age through education is an obvious approach to reducing aggressive, violent forms of masculinity that are inextricably linked to violence against women. There is disappointingly little evidence of attempts to do this, beyond a number of programmes in the United  States. One of the more successful of those is the Boys To Men youth programme, which claims to empower all people to notice and intervene in potentially harmful situations before they become violent. The importance of early educational interventions to prevent untreated minor harassment from progressing to more serious harassment or physical violence is clear. A further US study showed
“a developmental pathway via the adolescents’ development of antisocial behaviour”
to male-to-female personal violence perpetration.
Nearly 45 years after the first reclaim the night protest, and just months after the death of Sarah Everard, it is clear that women continue to feel unsafe on our streets. Radical action is needed and it is needed now. We must tackle the root cause of this harassment and violence on the streets. For preventive action, we must develop legislation that makes misogyny a criminal offence, and increase our awareness of and improve education about aggressive masculinities. In short, we must take action to change men’s behaviour and actions, and not simply focus on what women need to do to keep themselves safe.

Rosie Winterton: A number of people have withdrawn from this debate, so, unusually, I am going to increase the time limit to four minutes. I know that normally the time gets shorter for people at the end, but on this occasion there will be a little longer for them.

Kieran Mullan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I begin by thanking the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary for the work that they do to make our streets safer, the commitment they show to the victims of crime and their determination to start bringing justice back into the justice system. Imprisonment for life for child murderers, keeping the most serious offenders behind bars for longer and the £4 billion extra over the next four years for 18,000 additional prison places are incredibly encouraging steps and signify a direction of travel that we should all welcome.
However, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary will forgive me if I use this opportunity again to encourage the Government to go further. Ensuring that we have a justice system that more consistently delivers justice is one of the main reasons I got involved in politics. The harsh reality is that, right now, if any of my friends and family were the victims of a serious crime, even with our planned reforms, I doubt very much that they would get what I would consider to be justice.
I have talked before in this place about the intellectual snobbery that exists towards people who think that those who commit serious offences should spend a very long time in prison. On the Justice Committee, there is an endless supply of well-meaning witnesses, who come to tell us about the reasons why people should not go to prison or should spend less time there. There is a whole swathe of lobbying and campaigning organisations that want prison reform, and they are right that there is  more that we can and should do to improve rehabilitation —I know the Justice Secretary speaks very powerfully about his commitment to do that in the upcoming Bill—but failings in one area do not excuse inaction in another.
The absolute priority of the justice system should be to deliver justice for victims. In my experience, first and foremost, people want to see those who have raped, abused, maimed or murdered their family members locked up for a long time, and at the moment our justice system is not delivering that frequently enough. The highest starting point for the sexual assault of a child under 13 is six years, with a range of just four to nine years, and every year dozens of child rapists are sentenced to less than five years in prison. I would ask anybody to look in the eye a parent of a 12-year-old who has been sexually assaulted, and tell them that the perpetrator could be out of prison before their child has even reached adulthood and say that that is justice. I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if somebody raped my niece or nephew, traumatising them and potentially robbing them of the joy of intimacy in their personal lives forever, only that person spending most of the rest of their life in prison would satisfy me.
Across the board, I believe that we need—and, importantly, that the public support—a wholesale recalibration of criminal sentencing in this country. I think the term “life sentence” in itself is offensive to victims, implying as it does that in some way being on licence is anything like being in prison, or even close to what it is like living the real life sentence of being traumatised by a serious crime.
The Government are acting decisively. By reducing Labour’s early automatic release, in one simple step we will be delivering a huge increase in the time spent in prison by serious offenders, and I welcome that, but we remain some way off widespread confidence in our justice system, which can only come from increasing the sentences themselves. The Home Secretary and this Justice Secretary have my full support in delivering on this agenda, and I ask them to keep listening to victims and families, who would be criminalised if they sought justice on their own terms. The law requires them to ask the state to provide justice for them, and the state must not let them down.

Andrew Slaughter: This Queen’s Speech displays a hostility towards democracy and the rule of law, with a planning Bill that shifts power from elected local government to developers, which is a recipe for poorer-quality homes, the ruination of townscapes and fewer affordable homes; a voter registration Bill that aims to disenfranchise millions because, in the Conservative party’s opinion, they tend to vote the wrong way; a freedom of speech Bill that will curtail and proscribe the freedoms of universities; a proposal to hand the power to decide the date of the general election, for party advantage, to the Prime Minister; a renewed attempt to prevent public bodies considering human rights and international law in purchasing, procurement and investment decisions; and, four years after Grenfell Tower burned, a building safety Bill that does not begin to address the malpractices that tragedy exposed.
Three Bills in particular subjugate the individual to the state: the police Bill, the judicial review Bill and the borders Bill. We are familiar with the police Bill—the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Parts 3 and 4 are a sustained attack on civil rights, curtailing free assembly and free speech, and criminalising a way of life and the ethnic groups who pursue it. This weekend, The Times carried a provocative article that advocated ending both the requirement for local authorities to create Traveller sites and the ethnic minority status of Gypsies and Travellers. That just encapsulates the policy of this Home Secretary.
The borders Bill seeks to create two tiers of asylum seekers, the lower of which—those with temporary protection status—will have fewer rights and harsher treatment than now. That is likely to be in breach of the 1951 refugee convention, but this is a Government who do not worry about obeying the law. The recent Faulks inquiry into judicial review saw little to criticise in the system of legal MOTs that has developed over decades, and which mature Governments see as a means of road testing their decisions and powers. The Lord Chancellor spurns the judgment of his own independent review and presses on with a far more aggressive attempt to clip the judges’ wings. He wants to change the law before he has even seen the outcome of his review of the review.
There are shocking omissions here, too: no proposals for social care and no Bill to end no-fault evictions. Areas such as Hammersmith are in the bottom league for levelling-up funds, despite having some of the poorest communities in the country and having suffered the deepest austerity cuts in the past decade. There is nothing here to stop private companies such as the greedy US conglomerate Centene having free rein to buy up GP practices across England. These are examples of bias, self-interest and neglect at the heart of Government policy, but it is the trampling on civil liberties and constitutional rights that will make this otherwise forgettable Queen’s Speech notorious.

Nickie Aiken: There is much to welcome in the Queen’s Speech that will make our streets safer, but in the short time that I have today—although I recognise that I have an extra minute—I want to strongly welcome the focus in the Gracious Speech on online safety. Life on the internet should mirror what is and what is not acceptable offline. Very few people would abuse someone standing in the street, so why do it online? The draft Online Safety Bill signals a step change for tech responsibility, bringing fairness and accountability to the online world. Placing children’s safety at the heart of this legislation is absolutely right.
In the UK, more than 10,000 offenders are caught every year involved in grooming and downloading indecent images of children. That 50 years ago we put a man on the moon, but in the third decade of the 21st century we cannot even prevent the uploading of toddlers and babies being abused is beyond me. It is shameful that it has to be this Government to bring forward legislation to protect children from online paedophiles. It is partly because the platforms themselves pay only lip service to protection.
If left unchecked, a hostile online environment can spill into concerning real-world actions. This has been made clear in the degree of antisemitism seen both online  and offline in the past week. I was appalled by a briefing that I received from the London Jewish Forum, which provided evidence of antisemitism both in professional settings and on university campuses. The current conflict in the middle east has triggered new spikes of antisemitism both online and offline in this country.
As it currently stands in the draft Bill, only the largest and most popular platforms will be required to act on content that is harmful to adults. That risks the most harmful content just moving to less prolific sites. Parliament must protect the most vulnerable and ensure that the Bill compels all platforms, regardless of their reach, to remove harmful content and include robust digital policing.
I also hope that this Bill will give Ofcom the powers it needs to hold the platforms to account. I welcome the decision to include elements of economic crime within the scope of the Bill. I am proud that City of London police, based in my constituency, is the national lead for economic and cyber-crime. Sadly, fraud is the fastest growing area of crime in the UK, with City of London police currently receiving more than 800,000 reports a year. The inclusion of fraud in the Bill will provide much-needed encouragement, particularly for online retailers and auction sites, to take responsibility for protecting users and implementing counter-fraud strategies to prevent malicious content.
Our digital safety is just as important as our physical safety. I welcome the Bills outlined in this Queen’s Speech, which I think will make us all safer and—equally importantly—make us feel safer, whether we are online or walking in the street.

Alex Davies-Jones: Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I place on record my personal thanks to our incredible police and emergency service workers, who have shown selfless service, bravery and professionalism throughout the pandemic? All of us, including our fantastic key workers, deserve to feel safe on our streets, yet violent crime has increased across every police force over the past 11 years by a whopping 116%. Shockingly, this Government have still failed to reward staff with a pay rise.
Even with those horrific numbers, I am under no illusion that violent crime is the only issue that our police forces throughout the UK face. The key local problem that I receive the most abuse for on social media, and that I feel most powerless to tackle under this Government, is the increase in antisocial behaviour taking over the streets of Pontypridd and Taff Ely. For so many people who live in my constituency, especially in Beddau, Tonyrefail, Church Village and Rhydyfelin, antisocial behaviour is destroying communities. Many people now feel scared to go outdoors alone late at night.
The behaviour can range from vandalism, graffiti and fly-tipping to aggressive car chasing designed to intimidate and belittle those who live in our local communities. Judging by the strength of feeling conveyed in the messages in my inbox, residents have just about had enough, and I know that they are not alone. Although my local force, South Wales police, has been fantastic in its response to antisocial behaviour as well as to the wider pandemic, ultimately its resources are overstretched.
This Government need to understand that the solution to solving the crisis in order to keep our streets safe is not a simple one. The coronavirus pandemic has had an  enormous impact on young people, who have not been able to go to school, take their exams or see their friends for months at a time. It is undeniable that young people across the country have made huge sacrifices to support the fight against covid-19. This is not an issue that we should politicise; Governments of all political persuasions across the devolved nations have had to make difficult decisions in the context of the pandemic and, sadly, young people have been particularly affected.
When we speak about keeping our streets safe for all, we need to be clear that the solution is not simply to infiltrate our streets with a heightened police presence. A minority of people in my area are undoubtedly engaged in serious forms of antisocial behaviour, and there are real instances of intimidation, alcohol and drug abuse, rallying in car parks and violence. It goes without saying that that is completely unacceptable, but the vast majority of young people I know have been exemplary, even when they have faced cancelled exams, home schooling and uncertainty about university places.
Of course it is vital to ensure that police have the powers and resources that they need to tackle criminal and threatening behaviour, but we also need to ensure a multi-agency approach to support young people through this difficult time. Crucial to tackling the issue, particularly in rural communities such as mine, is regulating the role of social media platforms, which may often directly or indirectly encourage young people to participate in dangerous behaviour. This Government claim to be committed to tackling online harms, yet their online safety Bill fails and falls extremely short of the mark. Far from being bold, the legislation in its current form could allow social media companies to simply buy their way out of regulation by paying fines instead of facing criminal sanctions.
When we speak about keeping people safe on our streets, we need to talk about crimes big and small. Quite rightly, the light is often shone on the most aggressive or violent crimes that take place across the country, but we must also remember that smaller, more frequent disturbances such as antisocial behaviour have a massive impact on wellbeing in local communities such as mine. If the Lord Chancellor feels that I am overplaying the impact of antisocial behaviour on my area, I am sure that residents across Pontypridd and Taff Ely would welcome his visit with open arms as a chance to prove the extent of the issue.
Ultimately, this Queen’s Speech has utterly failed to address preventive services or approaches to tackling antisocial behaviour. If the Government are at all serious about keeping our streets safe for all, I wholeheartedly urge them to work across the devolved nations, partnering with police forces and local authorities to take action now.

Marie Rimmer: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones).
“Jesus, Mary and Joseph, and the wee donkey”
is one of many memorable quotes from Ted Hastings in “Line of Duty”. The TV show has gripped the nation and given the public an insight into how organised criminal groups operate. In the show, a young man with  Down’s syndrome is taken advantage of—far-fetched to some viewers, yet that is the reality faced by our police forces. These criminal groups are exploiting young and vulnerable people. The men at the top are cowards who use children to do their dirty work. These men often target children in care, who they see as easy prey.
I am sure most Members know that these networks are referred to as county lines. They work across police and local authority boundaries. Drug networks are no longer just about big cities; they frequently operate in towns and villages. The National Crime Agency estimates that there are well over 700 county lines across England and Wales, but it admits that the true number is difficult to determine. St Helens is one of those towns. Many Members will have had briefings from their local police forces. I am personally aware of parents whose vulnerable children have been coerced into the drugs trade. The damage it does to families and communities is truly heartbreaking. Local authorities, police commissioners and forces are bound by boundaries, but criminal groups are not concerned with boundaries. They have one priority: drug pushing. These criminals are doing well from cross-boundary working, and they do not believe that the police and the Government can keep up. It is the duty of Government to prove them wrong. It is a national problem that requires a national commitment to resource and resolve.
I will now turn to the issue of children and vulnerable people caught up in this trade. Children—that is what they are and that is how they should be treated—are not hardened criminals. They are exploited children. The cowards who criminally exploit children are no better than the evil individuals who sexually exploit children. Both should face the same shame and punishment for the damage they have caused to our children and our society. These young and vulnerable people need help and support.
Often, it is children in care who are exploited. Children in care are the children of our nation. Collectively, we all have a duty to look out for them. It is the Government who are ultimately responsible for these children, yet we in the Chamber must hold the Government to account for that duty. Children in care face a deteriorating situation due to a lack of Government funding. It really is no surprise that criminal groups are managing to target these children with relative ease. Youth services have been cut to the bare bone over the past decade of austerity. Children are being left to the mercy of hardened criminals.
To stop county lines, a new national strategy will be necessary. Police can and have closed many lines down, yet they need help. Children should be valued. The Government must provide better funding for children in education, public health, and youth and social services. There is no denying that county lines represents a huge challenge for the Government and police. The criminal cowards have adapted, now the Government must do the same. The Government have the power to change and to answer these problems, and resolve the issue for these children and society as a whole.

Miriam Cates: The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. I welcome the measures announced in the  Queen’s Speech that will strengthen our UK security protections, including the Telecommunications (Security) Bill and the counter state threats Bill. However, we must also protect citizens from internal threats from criminals in our own country who seek to cause harm. I therefore welcome the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which will increase punishments for the most serious crimes.
Even less serious crimes can blight people’s lives. Over recent weeks, I have had numerous reports of antisocial behaviour in the areas of Stocksbridge, Deepcar and Ecclesfield that is causing residents significant anxiety. It was reassuring to meet our outstanding local police officers to discuss their plans to tackle these crimes. The additional £636 million boost to police funding this year and thousands of new recruits will have a big impact on local policing, including reinforcing Deepcar police station in my constituency.
The measures in the Queen’s Speech will improve the detection, prosecution and punishment of crime, but we also need to increase our efforts to stop people from becoming criminals in the first place. The emergence of the Everyone’s Invited platform has highlighted the frightening number of sexual abuse crimes being committed against women and girls. The Government recently released a report on the relationship between pornography use and harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours, and it concluded that there was “substantial evidence” of an association between viewing pornography and harmful behaviour towards women. Women and girls in this country will not be safe until our children are protected from the destructive effects of pornography.
I welcome the laying out of the online harms Bill in the Queen’s Speech and its publication in draft, but even if it passes swiftly through Parliament, realistically we are perhaps two or more years away from the protections being enacted. Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which would enforce age verification for access to pornography sites, is ready to go, so I urge the Government to implement that legislation now. Even if doing so is only a temporary measure until the passing of the online harms Bill, can we really wait any longer to provide protection for our children?
Family breakdown is another factor in criminalisation. A quarter of all prisoners have been in care and 76% had absent fathers. If we really want to take crime seriously, we must reform family policy to strengthen family life, so I am delighted by the Government’s commitment in the Queen’s Speech to give every child
“the best start in life”.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for her outstanding and persistent work in that policy area.
I welcome the proposals in the Queen’s Speech. They will make my constituency of Penistone and Stocksbridge and the whole UK a safer place to live, work and raise a family.

Mohammad Yasin: The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a Bill of two halves. Many of my Labour colleagues had a hand in the development of much-needed new laws on the police covenant, assaults on emergency workers, the Lammy review and the extension of whole-life orders, but whole sections of the Bill have been hastily drafted and it will  introduce some of the most draconian measures this country has ever seen to impose disproportionate control on free expression and the right to protest. In particular, the Bill targets some of the most vulnerable and marginalised people in this country.
Successive Tory Governments have decimated our public services over the past 11 years. They have totally lost sight of the need to address the causes of crime, with the predictable consequence of the rise in violent crime in every single police-force area of England and Wales. The Government are making a habit of creating legislation for a problem that they have invented or exaggerated while overlooking the real and difficult issues. The problems in my constituency, like many others, are not protest but serious violent crime, knife crime, county lines drug running, gang culture, violence against women and girls and persistent antisocial behaviour. To tackle all that, we need visible community policing.
After a decade of police cuts, Bedfordshire will finally get some more police officers, paid for by council tax increases, but nowhere near as many as we need or were lost because of austerity. For many years I have been telling the Government that the funding formula for Bedfordshire police does not work. The force covers not only rural areas but large and growing urban conurbations and a main airport. Successive chief constables of Bedfordshire police and the former police and crime commissioner have said that the funding formula is not fit for purpose and needs to be urgently reviewed.
The force has made great strides in tackling violent crime and serious organised crimes. Such improvement was possible only because of an urgent funding grant. There is an overflow of intelligence about crimes that is not currently being developed because of the lack of resources. The force has had to find many millions in savings while the demands on it because of violent crime, sexual offences, domestic abuse, burglaries, fraud and cyber-crime are ever rising. Instead of tackling those things, the Government want to crack down on critical dissent—they are not being tough on crime or on the causes of crime.
The Queen’s Speech shows that rather than soundbites, policies are needed to come up with an effective preventive strategy. Bedfordshire police know how to bring crime levels down. They need a sustained level of increased funding. The bottom line is that until the funding formula is fixed, the streets of Bedford and Kempston will not be as safe as they could and should be.

Colleen Fletcher: First, I want to put on record my thanks to all those who work in our public services, from the NHS to the police, from social care to local government, and from education to public health. The people who work in our public services have borne the brunt of the coronavirus pandemic. Despite struggling against a backdrop of a decade of Tory cuts and underfunding, they have performed heroically in their efforts to save lives, protect people and support communities. The past year and the covid-19 pandemic served only to underline how essential well-funded public services are to protect and promote good health, address inequalities, educate the next generation and keep our streets safer. They are the lifeblood of a decent society and an essential element in enabling individuals and communities to develop and meet their potential.
The Queen’s Speech gave the Government the opportunity to acknowledge the importance of properly funded public services and to undo the damage their austerity agenda caused. Although there are some welcome proposals, such as the online safety Bill, the Queen’s Speech does nothing to address the damage caused by a decade of cuts, or reverse the Government’s long-standing ideological refusal to invest in our public services. It does nothing to address the crisis in social care, to reverse the savage cuts inflicted on local government, to meet the challenges facing our NHS, to help our struggling schools or to tackle crime.
While the Government chase causes like electoral fraud, they are seemingly happy to ignore the real concerns that my constituents live with. In 2019, there were only four convictions for electoral fraud in the whole of the UK, yet in the month of February, we had 600 antisocial behaviour incidents in Coventry alone.
The much-cherished model of community policing, carefully nurtured and supported under Labour, no longer exists. Indeed, I can cite numerous examples of where crimes occurred, but no action was taken because some residents no longer see any point in contacting the police, or live in fear of reprisals if they report crimes in their neighbourhoods. In many places, residents frequently observe thefts, street violence and drug dealing, to name but a few offences, but feel powerless to do anything about it. That is not good enough.
However, I am pleased that in the west midlands we have returned Simon Foster as our Labour police and crime commissioner. He is committed to employing an additional 450 community police officers throughout the west midlands, as well as fighting for the resources that we need. Of course, that will not deal with the problem in its entirety, but it will demonstrate to our residents that the only party willing and capable of giving the resources that the police need is the Labour party.

Antony Higginbotham: I cannot speak in any debate on making our streets safer without first thanking all the police officers and PCSOs of Burnley and Padiham police, who do a brilliant job of keeping us safe. I also want to put on record my enormous congratulations to Andrew Snowden, our brilliant new police and crime commissioner for Lancashire. I have known Andrew for quite a while, and he has the drive, passion and determination to tackle the issues that matter most to residents, not just antisocial behaviour in our towns, which he will tackle, but rural crime. I am really pleased that he is already looking at doubling the rural task force that Lancashire police have set up.
There is so much in the Queen’s Speech for us to be optimistic and pleased about. I am privileged to be a member of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, which starts in earnest tomorrow. The Bill is particularly welcome. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks we should continue with the automatic release of violent and sexual offenders halfway through their sentence. Not a single person has told me that they think that is a good idea.
Our emergency service workers—we have stood up in this House and praised them time and again—deserve the protections that we can offer them, so doubling the sentence for people who assault them is welcome. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) said, we also need to focus on the more bread-and-butter crimes: the rural crime issues that I just spoke about and which our PCC is looking at, such as speeding cars on our roads and fly-tipping on our country lanes. That is what our residents want us to be focused on, because that is what blights our communities.
However, we are also a nation of fair play and of doing the right thing, and for too long our immigration system has not matched that. As such, the new plan for immigration brings in that sense of fair play for people who follow the rules and do the right thing. No more of people throwing up new human rights concerns 24 hours before deportation that are spurious and meaningless: now, we will reward people who follow the safe and legal route of coming to the UK when they need to, as well as tackle those who try to prey on people’s fears and get them to spend thousands of pounds in the hope of a brighter future, only to lead them down dangerous routes.
My message to the Government on the Queen’s Speech is that there is so much—on crime, on policing, on immigration, and on online harms—that we can be proud of, but let us not lose sight of those bread-and-butter crime issues, such as fly-tipping and speeding cars, that our residents want us to be focusing on every day that we are in this place.

Gill Furniss: I start by congratulating Dr Alan Billings on his re-election as Labour’s South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner. Against a backdrop of immensely challenging circumstances, he has delivered on a range of initiatives to improve policing in this region, including the recently launched campaign to urge anyone experiencing domestic abuse to seek help and support. I also pay tribute to South Yorkshire police and support workers, and to all our frontline workers, for their dedication to duty during our recent covid troubles.
A decade of funding shortfalls has left our police forces cut to the bone. The Home Office police core settlement has remained at the same level it was back in 2010, meaning a cut in real terms, and this is being felt on our streets: the number of police officers has fallen by a staggering 20,000 since 2010. By comparison, between 2000 and 2010 under a Labour Government, the number of police officers rose by 40,000. The Government’s target of recruiting 20,000 more police officers would just scratch the surface, after a decade of severe underfunding has left our streets less safe. I was surprised earlier today to hear the Home Secretary talk to us—boast, really—about the rape strategy, and tell us how no delays would hold this up. I remind the Home Secretary that the rape review was announced over two years ago, and no action has been taken on it since. I urge her to hold sure to her word.
Since 2010, knife crime across the UK has risen by a staggering 50%, and in South Yorkshire it has nearly doubled. Despite repeated promises, the Government have continually failed to get a grip on this issue, which  is still leaving too many families grieving. We urgently need a national strategy of early intervention to get knives off our streets. Roughly a fifth of knife crime offenders are aged between 10 and 17, so schools and local organisations have a vital part to play in educating children on the dangers of knives from a very young age. My friend and newly elected Labour councillor, Safiya Saeed, has done commendable voluntary work in this area over a number of years. Using funding from the South Yorkshire violence reduction fund, Big Brother Burngreave engages with young people on the streets and from referrals from social care and schools who may be at risk of falling into knife crime, and runs weekly activities ranging from football matches to mental health workshops. Initiatives such as these could save lives.
However, at the heart of all this is the need for more resources: not just more police officers on our streets, but funding for a range of schemes such as amnesty bins and early intervention through schools and local authorities. We cannot sit back and watch as more and more young people lose their lives in these tragic circumstances. There has been enough talking on this issue: we need action, and we need it now. The first responsibility of a Government is ensuring the safety of their citizens. However, while violent crime is rising, the Government are not rising to the challenge. A decade of funding shortfalls and the lack of a coherent strategy to tackle knife crime has left our streets less safe. Instead of warm words and empty promises, we need urgent and comprehensive action to get a grip on these horrific crimes, which shatter families and our communities.

Angela Crawley: May I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed), congratulate her on her recent by-election win, and wish her predecessor well in the Scottish Parliament?
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on the Queen’s Speech, on the topic of ensuring that our streets are a safe place for all. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), that is a fitting subject, as the debate follows the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, a woman who was simply walking home following a night out with friends. If we are to ensure that the streets are a safe place for all, women must feel secure walking them. We did not then, and we do not now.
At the time of Sarah’s murder, I called on the UK Government to use deeds, not words, to tackle gender-based violence and finally ratify the Istanbul convention, yet despite signalling their intent to do so on several occasions, the Government have failed to stick to their word. The rights of women enshrined in the convention are fundamental and would prevent violence against women, protect victims and enable the prosecution of offenders. However, as a result of the UK’s failure to ratify the convention, it is not legally bound by its provisions, letting down women, girls and domestic abuse survivors in Scotland and across the UK. I therefore urge the Minister to use this Queen’s Speech to take us one step closer to safe streets for all by ratifying the Istanbul convention as a matter of urgency.
The debate also follows the religious celebration of Eid. At a time when many across the country marked the end of Ramadan, this Government and their Home  Office took the decision to send enforcement officers into Pollokshields in Glasgow to take part in a despicable raid to deport two of its residents. The people of Glasgow, however, had a different idea and gathered in numbers successfully to stop that inhumane practice continuing. Raids of that type are a clear infringement of basic human rights and must be condemned in the strongest possible manner. The SNP and the people of Scotland have repeatedly condemned the practice due to its inhumane approach.
In Glasgow, we welcome refugees and we celebrate the diversity of our wonderful city, turning out in numbers to prevent those men from being deported during a global pandemic, but if we are to make the streets safe for all, that must mean everyone, including refugees and asylum seekers. The Home Office must act immediately to halt its hostile home raids and work to develop an immigration system based on dignity and respect.
A Queen’s Speech is the hallmark of a Government and how they take care of the most vulnerable citizens in society. As we approach the 70th anniversary of the refugee convention, we witness this Government ripping apart the basic, fundamental rights of refugees and asylum seekers; and as we witness 50 years of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, it is completely absent from the debate on the Queen’s Speech, with not even a mention of its failure to tackle the war on drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has already alluded to many of these points, but the threats to the legal profession, the attacks on the justice system, the overhaul of the judicial review process, the clamping down on protest, and voter suppression are just some examples of this Government’s priorities.
I have only a few seconds left, so let me say that this Queen’s Speech is a measure of this Government, and if they will not act, they should give Scotland the power to do so. On immigration, asylum, refugees and drugs, we do not have the powers in Scotland; this Government do, and they must act.

Ruth Jones: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing to me to speak in this important debate.
This Tory Government talk about bobbies on the beat, but they fail to take the tough decisions needed to address their dismal management of the criminal justice system. Under the Conservatives, criminals have never had it so good. Over the past 11 years, we have witnessed this Conservative Government slashing police officer numbers and preventive services, and withdrawing neighbourhood policing. They are soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. Their policies will have no impact on crime, and nor will they keep the good people of Newport West safe if cases take years to be heard and victims do not get the support they deserve.
This Queen’s Speech does nothing to address the years of cuts that central Government have made to police forces throughout England and Wales. Attacks on emergency service workers have increased by 50% over the past five years, with violent crime rising by 116% and the number of violent crime suspects down by 26%.
We all know that the last year has had a devastating impact on our public services, and the courts system is no different. Indeed, I have raised this issue directly   with the Lord Chancellor, who, like all good Welshmen, was very courteous in his response. I want to say a special thank you to all the public sector workers who work in the justice system—from court clerks to county court judges, they have all worked tirelessly to make sure that justice is done. I fear, however, that Ministers think that we are as blind as Lady Justice. They must think that we did not see the long backlog of criminal cases that was present even before the pandemic. They must think that we have not noticed that, rather than taking steps to ensure that the justice system flows smoothly and operates fairly, they have simply put up barriers for the people I represent in Newport West and across the country.
Black and minority ethnic people make up a far larger percentage of those arrested for and charged with crimes than they represent in society. Sadly, that number keeps increasing. What steps is the Lord Chancellor taking to address this discrimination?
I want to take this opportunity to express my sympathy for and solidarity with the families of Moyied Bashir and Mohamud Hassan, two young men from south Wales who tragically lost their lives well before their time. Mohamud lost his life shortly after spending time in police custody, and Moyied died shortly after his family called the police for assistance. I am aware that an investigation is ongoing, so I will not say any more, but I am keen to work with Ministers and the relevant authorities, as well as the families, to ensure that nothing like this can happen again.
Sadly, Mohamud is not the only person to die in the care of the state. Recent research by the Howard League shows that deaths in prisons are up 42% in England and Wales from the previous year. Four hundred and eight people died in prison custody in the year to the end of March 2021—a significant rise compared with the 287 who died during the previous 12 months—including 79 people who lost their lives through suicide.
There is a high number of deaths in south Wales’s overcrowded prisons. I understand that it is never popular to invest in prisons, but people do not deserve to die well before their time, especially those to whom the state owes a duty of care. In Wales, it is our privatised prison, HMP Parc, run by G4S, that has the highest proportion of deaths. Will the Lord Chancellor tell the House about this Government’s plans for prison privatisation? Will more prisons be handed over to the private sector? If so, what steps will he take to ensure that the high number of deaths among prisoners is not repeated in any other prisons? If that is not the case, when can we expect Parc to be taken back into public hands? We need to know what steps Ministers will take to ensure that this unacceptable death toll is tackled, and tackled now. Will the Lord Chancellor tell me what mental health support is available to prisoners and at what stage support becomes available? Surely a prison sentence should not become a death sentence.

Anne McLaughlin: I want people out there to know that being an MP does not stop that feeling of utter despair at times, and that is the best way to describe how I feel when I look at what the UK Home Office has planned. Much of it will not  impact on me personally, particularly while I am elected, but it still affects me personally, because like so many people, I find it almost unbearable to live under a Government who care so little about people’s civil liberties; who care even less about the human rights of people who come to us desperate for refuge; and who, instead of celebrating different cultures and ways of life, punish those who are simply trying to live those lives.
It is, however, possible to take a human rights approach and actually mean it. There are political parties that people can believe in. In Scotland, refugees and 16 and 17-year-olds can now vote. We are opening voting up to more people. This Tory Government will require people to have photographic ID or lose their vote. Barriers and voter suppression are not what we expect from the so-called bastion of democracy.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will allow vehicles to be confiscated from Gypsy Travellers for pretty minor offences in England and Wales, even if the vehicle is their home. In Scotland, we produced an action plan in conjunction with Traveller communities, and in case the Home Secretary is wondering, the purpose is to improve lives.
In the UK, there will be longer jail terms for those who topple statues honouring chattel slave owners than for those subjecting other human beings to modern-day slavery. Under the SNP, a move away from soft versus hard justice and a focus on smart justice has led to Scotland having the lowest reconviction rates in 21 years.
The SNP will shortly establish a new £100 million fund to focus on the prevention of violence against women and girls. I ask for the umpteenth time: when are this Government going to ratify the Istanbul convention? On that note, as Labour colleagues have asked, when is the review by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) going to be implemented?
Of course, our two Governments see things very differently. The shameful dawn raids that have started again in Glasgow shone a light on the difference between callous and compassionate government. I thank the peaceful, sober and tidy people of Pollokshields for the way in which they conducted themselves as they showed two of their neighbours that they are welcome in Scotland. I echo the condemnation that we have heard of antisemitism and all forms of racism and discrimination, including Islamophobia and anti-Catholicism, which have never gone away but have reared their truly ugly heads again recently.
I abhor the plans to clamp down on people peacefully demonstrating. The right to do so is a cornerstone of any democracy. I may not need to demonstrate outside the UK Parliament, because I can speak my mind inside, and I plan to stop being an MP only when Scotland is independent and we therefore have no need to demonstrate in England. But even if independence was happening next week, I would not leave this Parliament without fighting for the right of every person on these islands to protest. Right now, the people of Scotland must have the right to protest policies that impact on their lives over which we have no control, and we must be allowed to protest at the seat of power, and that means this Parliament.
I end by paying tribute to the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaigners, who are to be banned from doing as they did so brilliantly, so eloquently and  so peacefully before the pandemic—that is, demonstrating across the road in Parliament Square. They came here to get support and they got it. They came here to raise awareness and they did. They came here to be seen and heard, and they were, but if this legislation goes through and the proposed exclusion zone is brought in, they can come here no more—to their Parliament to protest their Government to protect their rights—and that is all kinds of wrong.

Navendu Mishra: The Queen’s Speech was another opportunity for the Government to provide proper funding for our public services and make our streets safer, after a decade of cuts which has led to rising crime across the nation. Once again, this Government have failed to grasp that opportunity.
The Secretary of State opened this debate by stating that
“no one… should be made to feel unsafe when walking our streets.”
Well, the fact is that the Home Secretary talks a good game, but her rhetoric does not match up with the reality. Indeed, last year, research by her own Department named the falling number of police officers since 2010 as a “contributory factor” to the rising number of murders in Britain, alongside drugs and terror attacks. In 2019, the current Metropolitan Police Commissioner was forced to admit that there was a link between violent crime on the streets and police numbers, particularly in relation to rising knife crime.
The Government have said they will provide 20,000 new officers by 2022. However, that will only serve to plug some of the hole left by the 21,000 police that were cut between 2010 and 2019. Furthermore, it will mean thousands of new and inexperienced officers being out on duty, which is far from a like-for-like replacement. It is little more than taking with one hand and giving with the other. We can only assume that the decision to return the police force to numbers similar to those of more than a decade ago is an acknowledgement by this Government that police austerity has failed. Indeed, there is a direct parallel between the fall in police numbers and violent crime rising in every police force over the past 11 years, with violent crime up by 116% and the number of violent crime suspects down by 26%.
This Government’s failed approach has had a direct impact on police and crime figures in my own constituency of Stockport and right across Greater Manchester. Recently I met representatives from Stockport Council, Greater Manchester police and Stockport Homes to discuss incidents in the local community. My special thanks go to the brilliant antisocial behaviour team at Stockport Homes led by Sinead and Clare. At the time I was reassured by the measures that had been put in place at a local level. I pay tribute to the hard work of Superintendent Marcus Noden and Inspector Ian Ashenden of Greater Manchester police’s Stockport division, as well as the entire team at Stockport police, for supporting our community. I am also grateful to the teams at Stockport Homes and Stockport Council for working alongside my office in supporting victims of antisocial behaviour.
But the brutal truth is that many of these organisations are facing an uphill battle, with many budgets having been pared down to the bone, and these shoestring budgets are being stretched even further in the face of rising  crime. To take just one example, research by Greater Manchester police revealed that Stockport ranks second in the region in vehicle nuisance incident logs relating to off-road bikes. Despite this, since 2010 the Government have cut the grant they provide to Greater Manchester by £215 million, and as a result we now have 2,000 fewer bobbies on the beat on our streets and 1,000 fewer support staff. This is nothing short of scandalous and is compounded by the fact that the Government support to Stockport Council has been slashed, further harming community drives to cut crime.
We cannot overlook the impact that Government cuts have had on community groups and organisations across the country, including youth services, mental health services, our probation service, and other preventive services. Cutting these services has clearly had a significant effect on crime. Our communities should no longer be blighted by this Government’s chronic underfunding of police and community programmes: they deserve far, far better.

Tonia Antoniazzi: I mostly welcome the Government’s commitments to tackling crime and to addressing violence, particularly violence against women and girls. The review of the criminal justice response to rape is long overdue, and some say that rape has effectively been decriminalised.
To find effective solutions we must fully understand the problem, and accurate data is key in tackling the causes of crime, protecting the public, providing justice to victims, and rehabilitating offenders. Data must be accurately sex-disaggregated in order to fully understand the impact of all crimes on women and girls. In order to combat sexism, we need to count sex, and in order to combat discrimination against other groups, there is a need to record separate and additional data. The offending patterns of men and of women show the highest differential of all, so we need to monitor the sex of victims and of perpetrators of all crimes. For example, the proportion of women among those prosecuted in 2019 was 2% for sexual offences, 8% for robbery, and 7% for possession of a weapon.
We all want to live in a society that is respectful and tolerant and strives for equality. Gender reassignment is rightly a protected characteristic and we must respect the privacy of transgender people, but in order to protect everyone when it comes to official records of offences, particularly against women and girls, we need accurate records of the biological sex of the victims and the perpetrators of crime, in addition to data on the gender identity of victims and perpetrators. Why then are police forces recording the self-identified gender of victims of suspected offenders and not their biological sex? I understand that at least 16 regional police forces now record suspects’ sex on the basis of gender identity, following the advice of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. Data based only on self-identified gender does not give accurate data on which to build a violence against women and girls strategy, nor to effectively plan services that support all victims and target all perpetrators whatever their sex or however they identify.
If police records are not robust and correctly disaggregated by sex, we end up with unreliable and potentially misleading data in reporting. For example, the BBC asked 45 regional police forces in the UK for   data on reported cases of female perpetrators’ child sex abuse from 2015 to 2019. The data received indicated that there was an increase of 84%. Data corruption means that we cannot tell whether this large increase is due to an increase in female offenders or those identifying as women, and that detail matters.
Women make up 3% of the arrests for all sexual offences. The number of women convicted for these crimes is so low that the misrecording of the sex of the perpetrator skews the data very quickly. Where offence categories are very rarely committed by women, the addition of just one or two people can have a significant impact on data. For example, a biological man convicted of attempted murder and other offences at Birmingham Crown court in 2017 was recorded as female, thus falsely elevating the number of females convicted of attempted murder that year in England and Wales by around 20%. We need to know what action the Government will take to ensure correct police record keeping and prevent the potential corruption of data on crimes and their impact on women and girls.

David Lammy: It is an honour to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition. We have had some powerful speeches from those on the Opposition Benches. I will come to those on the Government Benches in a moment, but on justice, I mention the speeches of my right hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), from whom we have just heard.
On the Government Benches, the Secretary of State would do well to think hard about what was said by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and his remonstrations on remote juries and judicial review in particular. He would do well to listen to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on pet theft—I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will be supporting the Opposition amendments on that issue. He would do well to listen to the concerns of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) about violence against women and law enforcement.
But I want to concentrate on those outside the House. Last October, a woman in her twenties spoke to the BBC about the most traumatic day of her life—the day she was raped. It was not only the violation she suffered that day that caused her distress, but what came after. Instead of quickly punishing her attacker, the state made this woman wait three years before her case came  to court for the very first time. When she finally arrived, finally hoping to get justice, she was told that her case would be delayed yet again. It is no wonder she told the BBC that she felt she had been “let down constantly”. It is no wonder she now wishes she did had not reported it in the first place, and it is no wonder she now wants to move on with her life. She said:
“I have to take my anti-depressants and stuff like that…to feel a little bit better”.
That is just one voice among the tens of thousands of victims being let down by this Conservative Government—just one victim in the record-breaking 57,000 criminal cases facing delays, and just one victim compared with the 773,000 victims of sexual assault or rape last year. Only 1.4% of those cases will result in the suspect being charged.
Under the Conservatives, rapists and other criminals have never had it so good. Convictions for rape, robbery, theft, criminal damage, arson, drug offences and fraud have all fallen to a 10-year low under this Government. The total number of convictions has collapsed from 570,000 in 2010, when Labour left office, to 338,000 in 2020, after a decade of Conservative rule. More than a million victims dropped out last year before trials began, including more than one in four of all criminal cases and nearly half of all alleged rape victims. Victims of crime are being locked out of court and left in the cold because of delays that this Government created.
The backlog in the Crown court is at a record high of 57,000 cases, and it sat at 39,000 even before the pandemic began. The pandemic made the backlog worse, but it was created by the Conservatives closing half of all our courts in England and Wales between 2010 and 2019 and allowing 27,000 fewer sitting days than in 2016. All the measures Labour called for to keep delays down during the pandemic were ignored. Mass testing in courts—forget it. The roll-out of Nightingale courts to the number that was called for by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service—no chance. Temporarily reduced juries so that more trials could continue in a way that was safe—ignored. What have we been left with? A court system that punishes only victims and lets criminals get away with murder—literally.
This Government are failing victims on every front. More than a quarter of all crimes are not being prosecuted because the victims are dropping out of the process entirely. That means that 1 million victims every year are being failed by the very system designed to protect them. On top of denying justice through delays, this Government have so far failed at the simple task of enshrining victims’ legally enforceable rights. The Conservatives have promised a victims Bill in almost every Queen’s Speech since 2016 and in the past three manifestos, but five years on, their Bill still has not appeared in Parliament. This Government are all style and no substance, all talk and no walk.
Where the Tories fail to step up, Labour has stepped in. Victims do not need warm words; they need a Bill, and that is why we drafted one. Labour has its victims Bill published, brought to Parliament and ready to go. Instead of publishing a Bill in draft, the Government should work with us to implement the victims Bill immediately. That will finally enshrine the rights of victims of crime and those who suffer persistent anti- social behaviour.
When rapists run free and victims suffer the indignity of being denied justice, the Government have made their twisted priorities clear. The British public value democracy, accountability, the independence of the courts and the right of the public to challenge the Government when they break the law. This Government do not share those values. Judicial review is a key part of our constitution. It is the only way that members of the public and organisations can challenge the Government and other public bodies when they act unlawfully. Even after their own panel advised against making the widespread changes to judicial review that they desire, the Government’s plans are being pushed ahead.
Why have the Government announced a further consultation exclusively on the use of ouster clauses when their own review explicitly said that they should not do that? Why is the Ministry of Justice prioritising messing with our constitution when it is presiding over a victims crisis and record court delays? This Secretary of State really has skewed priorities. Get on with solving the crime against women, victims and girls. Stop fiddling around with judicial review. Stop joining with colleagues to play games with our democracy, the right to vote and IDs.
Victims’ rights need to be further up the Secretary of State’s list of priorities. That is why today we published a Green Paper on ending the epidemic of violence against women and girls. We plan to make misogyny a hate crime—will the Secretary of State do it? We will increase sentences for rapists and stalkers—will he do it? We will create new, specific offences for sexual harassment and sex for rent—will he do it? We will reverse the Government’s record low conviction rates for rape—will he do it? We will remove legal barriers that prevent victims of domestic abuse from getting help when they need it through legal aid—will he give legal aid back to those who have suffered domestic abuse? We will bring in new custodial sentences for those who name victims of rape and sexual assault. We will train teachers to help identify, respond to and support child victims of domestic abuse. We will repeal the rape clause for social security claims and introduce binding national indicators to hold the Government to account. That is a comprehensive plan.
My question to the Government is simple. Violence against women and girls is a stain on our society. We cannot wait to act anymore. Will the Government work with us to implement our Bill and end this brutality? If they do not, they will force more victims of rape, domestic abuse, assault and violence to give up hope. As Helen Keller said:
“Women have discovered that they cannot rely on men’s chivalry to give them justice.”
Women need legislation. Why will this Secretary of State not act?

Robert Buckland: It is a pleasure and an honour to wind up this day of debate on the Gracious Speech, with particular regard to keeping our streets safe. It is important to start my remarks by paying warm and deep tribute to all the dedicated public servants in the criminal justice system who have done so much to keep the wheels of justice turning. I think of the court staff in our Crown courts, our magistrates courts and, indeed,   in our other jurisdictions who have worked tirelessly to make sure that, almost alone in the western world, we have kept our system going. We have been able to deal with a huge number of cases not just in person, but remotely. That is the result of investment in technology and in extra staff to assist the judiciary to carry out its important work. I also think of all those incredible public servants in our prison system—prison officers, probation officers and support staff—who went more than just an extra mile. It is almost difficult to explain some of the sacrifices that staff made during the height of the pandemic to make sure that they could safely do their job and save lives, which is what they did, in our prison system. I think the whole House will join me in paying warm tribute to them for the work that they have done, which has allowed us to recover and, indeed, to rebuild and to work in a better way to make sure that justice is delivered.
There were many excellent contributions in this debate. Members from all parts of the House made some thought-provoking points. I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn made about places of safety under the Mental Health Act 1983 is an important one, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I take very seriously. I will look at the issues that she raises with regard to that statutory operation. Through good operational practice, I know that more and more mental health trusts are working sensitively with patients to make sure that those provisions need not be triggered, but I will take up the matter further with her at her request.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, as he always does, including in his work on the Justice Committee, stood up eloquently and strongly for the victims of crime and for his constituents.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster who, quite rightly and with some eloquence, talked about online harms and how the work that my colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are doing with regard to strengthening the law will make us a world leader in dealing with the sad menace of online child abuse, which is every bit as evil and pernicious and has as many victims as abuse does offline.
I was particularly interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), who spoke well about county lines. She made some powerful points about the fact that these lines stretch into our towns and smaller communities just as much as they do into our cities. She rightly acknowledged the work that the police are doing to disrupt and indeed to end quite a lot of this activity. I particularly agreed with her point about unaccompanied children and the abuse of children by those responsible for that organised crime. She will be glad to know that, increasingly, the police take a far more delicate and sensitive approach to the way in which children are safeguarded as a result of the abuse. In other words, not every child will be, or should be, a defendant. In fact, very often, the opposite should be the case. The work of protection and safeguarding is vital if we are to cut off the abuse and the grooming  that goes on, which is every bit as pernicious as other types of grooming that we see in other types of criminal activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) made, I think, one of the most important points in this debate: that family breakdown, sadly, remains a key driver of crime in many, many cases. Her support for the Government’s radical policies on early years intervention and development is warmly welcomed. The work being done by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), which is supported across Government, will yield real and generational change when it comes to our understanding of early years development and of how, sadly, in too many cases, the experiences of early years can be a predictor of, first, school exclusion and then later a descent into crime.
I think all of us in this House understand that those interventions need to be made, and doing it better will solve problems that all too often become problems my Department has to deal with. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that the Ministry of Justice cannot solve these problems alone; it is a cross-governmental and, indeed, cross-agency approach that will truly help to turn the tide when it comes to the drivers of crime.
I am proud to be part of a Government who get that, and through the criminal justice taskforce, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we are working already to make the sort of interventions that can reduce reoffending. Indeed, such interventions—whether it be the £70 million in increased offender accommodation on release from custody, the £80 million in increased drug treatment support, or the roll-out of community sentence treatment requirements that I believe will give sentencers a much deeper and richer choice of sentences—will, I believe, make a difference in the long term.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), who speaks so strongly for residents in his community in Lancashire. He taps in and understands their concerns, hopes and fears, and I believe that he represents them with passion and eloquence.
With the greatest of respect to Labour Members, some of the observations they made would have carried, in my submission, more conviction had they supported the Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. That was an opportunity for Labour Members to match their warm words with deeds. They failed to take that opportunity. They failed to support the balanced measures we are taking on sentencing and, indeed, the wider approach we are taking to improve the way in which the criminal justice system responds. It was a more than disappointing moment; it was in many ways a bewildering moment, because Labour Members at one time said that we were not going far enough, and then in the debate said that we were going too far. Now I really do not know where they are, or perhaps they do not know where they are. [Interruption.] Oh, I will come to the amendments when we come to debate the Bill in greater detail.
Let us remind ourselves of the key purposes of the Government’s approach to the reforms we are making. The first is to better protect the public whom we serve. That has to be at the heart of what we are doing, particularly in making sure that Labour’s policy of automatic early release is progressively ended. The second is to increase public confidence in our system of justice. Those of us who spend a lot of our time talking to residents on the doorstep and working with them will constantly be struck by the gulf that sometimes exists between those of us who are close to the system and those who feel there is a disconnection between what is happening in our criminal justice system and what is happening in our communities.
Why are these things important and why is this disconnection of great importance? Because I firmly believe, as do the Government, that safer communities are stabler ones, and that the more stable a community becomes, the more able it will be to grow and flourish economically, culturally, socially and, indeed, spiritually. That is what I regard as true levelling up, which is why the criminal justice policies of this Government are a crucial part of that agenda.
I am conscious of time, but I will make this observation. The Bill that we have brought back in this second Session is but the latest stage in a number of measures that we have taken in the last two years to improve the approach we take to criminal justice. In that time, two counter-terrorism Bills that strengthened sentencing for the most serious terrorists and improved the way in which we supervise them on licence have been enacted.
Last September, I published the sentencing White Paper. As a result of that, we ended automatic halfway release for serious violent and sexual offenders serving seven years or more. Indeed, we increased the range of sentences that are now referrable to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient. On top of that, we have committed £4 billion to making progress on the delivery of 18,000 additional prison places across England and Wales. That is vital, and it comes on top of an additional £315 million to improve the condition of our existing estate.
When it comes to supporting victims, I say this to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy): we are taking action. Not only are we going to advance the victims law but we have published the revised victims code, which came into force last month and was supported by all parts of the sector. We have invested just under £151 million in victim and witness support services, including an extra £51 million to support rape and domestic abuse victims. Of course, the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that this Government pushed for has been passed—with support, I accept, from all parts of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman sometimes reminds me of the bad prosecutor: he might have a few good points, but he over-eggs the pudding with a poorly presented case. With the greatest of respect to him, that is what happened tonight. I commend the Government’s programme on law and order to the House.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Ukraine

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Stewart McDonald: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the situation in Ukraine. I will let the Minister get to his seat before we get into it. It has been some time since the House debated this issue, and we have even been given an extra nine minutes this evening to do so, although I do not intend to detain colleagues any longer than is absolutely necessary. I should declare an interest as a holder of the order of merit, which was kindly awarded to me in 2019 by President Zelensky as a friend of Ukraine.
It would be remiss of me not to remark on the fact—although I appreciate that this is not the Minister’s territory as far as his portfolio goes—that as we debate the situation in Ukraine right now, there is a blazing conflict in the middle east between Israel and Palestine that cannot have failed to shock Members of the House and members of the Government, not least the bombing of a building containing the offices of the Associated Press and al-Jazeera. But I will leave that there for now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I applied for this debate some time ago, when the escalating situation on the Russia- Ukraine border was the big military news story at the time. We have seen an intense build-up of personnel and heavy equipment on land, air and sea and, contrary to what some believed to be a major drawback from the border by the Russian side, that border is still heavily militarised and the drawback is nowhere near what some seem to think it is. Indeed, the situation right now on the contact line in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine remains as bad as it has been since the conflict started. Just this year alone, since the end of December, 37 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and 74 have been wounded, some of whom have probably died as a result of their wounds.
It is also worth remembering that Ukraine is one of the most infested places on earth as far as landmines are concerned. I pay particular tribute to the work of the HALO Trust, which does an incredible job of de-mining in Ukraine, although not just in Ukraine. The Minister would expect me to speak up for the funding that his Department provides to the trust for its work there and elsewhere, such as in Syria. It is vital that the cut to international aid funding should not result in a cut to efforts to de-mine what is a European country, as is all too often forgotten.
Before I come to what is happening in 2021, I want to take us back slightly. The House will know the 2014 background, understand the Maidan revolution and know of the non-military, non-kinetic warfare that is being besieged on Ukraine, its Government and its people by its larger neighbour the Russian Federation. I was extremely privileged, although somewhat depressed, to visit eastern Ukraine a couple of years ago. I was pleased to have that visit facilitated by the former UK ambassador, Judith Gough, who I think is now in Stockholm. I saw for myself the misery, destruction and poverty that the war has brought upon free European citizens who deserve the right to choose their own path, and not to have one foisted on them militarily by their neighbour.
Since coming back from that trip, I have kept up contact with people I met—politicians, civil society groups and members of the public—in the capital and the east, to stay in touch and ensure that as a parliamentarian I am as informed as possible. Their worry, concern and anxiety right now, today, is higher than they have ever felt it since the days when the conflict broke out.
When we look at the current military projection from the Russian Federation to the borders of Ukraine, although there has been a very small drawback, the war rages in the east, the illegal annexation of Crimea continues and a blockade is now taking place against the sea of Azov. I ask the Minister to be frank at the Dispatch Box in telling the House whether that blockade of the sea of Azov and the Kerch strait represents a breach of the UN law of the sea and of the agreement between Kiev and Moscow on how the sea of Azov should be managed.
As I am sure the Minister would expect, I want to talk a little about the Government’s response. I criticise the UK Government day in, day out—that is my job as an Opposition politician—but I think that their support to Ukraine, particularly but not just in military terms, is one of their better outfits, shall we say. I know that that really matters in the capital of Ukraine; it has my support, for sure, and that of anyone who wants stability and peace in the country and the wider region.
However, I have to come to sanctions policy and to the red herring that is Nord Stream 2. I am afraid that we have had debate after debate and question after question in the House about the Government’s position on Nord Stream 2, which seems to be, “It’s nothing to do with us, guv.” Indeed, I remember that when Alan Duncan was Minister for Europe, that was exactly the position that he would answer written questions with, although I am not sure whether it made it into his diaries: that the matter was not seen as a priority or an immediate threat and was therefore nothing to do with the United Kingdom Government.
That is a false position to take. Although the UK has left the European Union, it is still the case—not least by dint of the UK’s position as a NATO member state, and a founding member state at that—that European security matters. Nord Stream 2 represents an enormous threat to European security and European stability, so I would like the Government to show some muscle. Right now, what I can see is that the only person standing in the way of Nord Stream 2 as it is supposed to operate is the leader of the German Green party, Annalena Baerbock. If she and her party are successful in forming part of the coalition after the federal elections in September, they may well represent a halt to the project.
I can see you getting nervous, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will pad this out so that you can intervene at the appropriate time, which I think is about now.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David T.C. Davies.)

Stewart McDonald: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, I hope she is successful for that reason and many others, but I would like to know what the Government’s position on this is now. Has it changed? Has it evolved? Given the Salisbury  incident that happened a few years ago alone, how on earth can the Government continue with a head-in-the-sand attitude and approach to Nord Stream 2? We owe ourselves better than that, but we certainly owe our fellow Europeans, not least our friends in Ukraine, a bit more than that too.
I also wish to mention Russia Today, because the war against Ukraine has not just been one of military hardware, foreign fighters, bullets and shells, although they have been a part of the most tragic consequence of it; the information war being fought against Ukraine, not just in Ukraine, but around the western world, is another facet to this hybrid conflict. I would like to know why the Government can correctly sanction a TV news presenter in Russia who is speaking Russian to a domestic Russian audience but will not sanction the head of RT, the global editor in chief, Margarita Simonyan, who I am sure is frantically writing out a public statement about me as she hears this. Why will the Government not sanction the head of the outfit that is being used to pump out dangerous disinformation in this country and elsewhere, given that they recognise that this is a threat to our own security and the collective security we stand in as far as NATO, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and much else is concerned? Can we get a more robust and targeted sanctions policy that goes after those who want to sow disinformation, discord, falsehoods and lies and ultimately help continue the propaganda war, as RT does so brazenly?
Let me come to numbers. The war in Ukraine has killed more than 14,000 people, most of them innocent civilians. It has displaced more than 1 million Ukrainian nationals within their own land. I am not sure whether the Minister has had the chance to go to eastern Ukraine to see the impact that the war has had there, but it is a somewhat sorry place. Although I know we will do all we can to help rebuild it, the tragedy of this conflict will go on for many years to come, and that is before we even get on to the situation in Crimea, where a part of Ukraine that was illegally annexed is currently illegally occupied. Human rights abuses are the day-to-day norm there, and Crimean Tatars, some of the oldest peoples in the continent of Europe, are targeted, harassed and imprisoned for the crime of flying the Crimean flag. I would like to hear from the Government what more we can do, now that the Ukrainian Government has launched the “Crimean platform”, to support Crimean Tatars, who are so brazenly and hellishly targeted by Russian forces in Crimea.
In a call a few weeks ago, organised by the chair of the all-party group on Ukraine, the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), we talked to some Ukrainian MPs from across the political spectrum. I mentioned this earlier, but I will say it again: the anxiety is very real. The threat of a full-on military incursion of some description has not gone away—it just might not happen in the spring. That threat is very much there. I know from talking to those Members of Parliament that they do not want their country to be constantly ignored as a country that is at war, a country that is chopped up and annexed by its neighbour; they want to be contributing to the big challenges that we face today. In my own city later this year we will host COP26. That is what Ukrainian citizens want to be focusing on:  climate change, data policy, international crime—all the things that any sovereign European Government should want to focus on.
We on these Benches support entirely the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, sometimes known as the bread basket of Europe or the gates of Europe. It is an old country—a proud people and a proud land with a complicated history. It has had a long association and friendship with people here in the UK; indeed, the Donbass region that is currently the subject of war was founded by a Welshman, and the connections with Scotland are long and well known. I do not doubt at all that the Government are a friend of Ukraine; I just think they could be a better friend of Ukraine, and what is the job of the opposition if not constantly to try to edge the Government into a better place than they might otherwise be?
So I want to hear from the Minister about the sanctions policy the Government follow, because it strikes me as somewhat patchy. I want to hear from the Minister—and I am sure he will tell me—about the planned visit by the Royal Navy later this year. I want to hear from the Minister, although we are not part of the formal peace talks process, about the UK’s diplomatic engagement with France, Germany and other countries to bring that about. And I want to hear from the Minister a positive change in the Government’s position on Nord Stream 2, because this will rapidly pose a threat here; if the Minister and the Government think that the cash generated from that project will not be used against us, that is a rose-tinted naiveté that in fairness I do not believe for one second the Minister would be guilty of.
This is a dangerous time for the Ukrainian people. They have suffered enough. The conflict that goes on—the frozen conflict, as it is sometimes known—can escalate, and that would be in nobody’s interests. I am sure all of us want to see peace and prosperity, and all of us accept that it is not easy, simple or plain. In that spirit, I invite the Minister to not just be a friend of Ukraine but to be a better friend of Ukraine, as I know he wants to be. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Nigel Adams: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for securing this debate and pay tribute to him for all the work he does in this place on behalf and in support of Ukraine. I understand he is a vice-chair of the all-party group on Ukraine, and, indeed, being recognised by Ukraine is no small achievement; the hon. Gentleman referred to his receiving the very distinguished award of the Order of Merit, and he is to be commended for that.
It is important that all Ukraine’s friends continue to show unwavering support for the country. Principally, that means standing with Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression and provocation, as well as supporting reforms and Ukrainian institutions. I should have said at the outset that I am here because the Minister responsible for Ukraine is travelling, so I apologise if I cannot go into all the detail that the hon. Gentleman wants, but I assure him that we will do our best to get the relevant responses that he requires.
As we set out in the integrated review, Ukraine forms part of our efforts in the eastern European neighbourhood and beyond to deter and defend against the full spectrum   of threats emanating from Russia. The UK Government remain resolute in our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We want Ukraine to be secure, stable and prosperous, and we want Ukrainians to be able to define their own future.
We are one of the few international partners that offer Ukraine a full range of military, security, economic, political and governance support. We are at the heart of the international community’s engagement on Ukraine, launching the Ukraine reform conference series, deepening NATO’s partnership with the country, shaping international sanctions against Russia and leading the efforts in the United Nations to hold Russia to account.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have also deepened our bilateral ties with Ukraine, particularly through our political, free trade and strategic partnership agreement, which was signed in October by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky. The agreement provides the foundation for a deeper strategic political and trading relationship. It is a framework for continued co-operation on human rights, the rule of law and democracy. It offers opportunities to strengthen cultural ties and links between our people, building on existing UK programmes such as Chevening as well as the John Smith Trust.
I want to go into a little more detail about our work with allies, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, aimed at deterring Russian aggression and de-escalating tensions following Russia’s recent military build-up near Ukraine’s border and in the illegally annexed Crimea. The Government maintain regular senior-level engagement with our allies, working together through the UN in New York, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Vienna, and also directly with the Government of Ukraine. The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs have been in touch with their Ukrainian counterparts to assure them of our support for and solidarity with the Government and people of Ukraine, for which we have been thanked by President Zelensky.
Russia’s troop movements last month yet again illustrate Russia’s appetite to provoke and destabilise. Although the Russian Defence Minister announced on 22 April that Russian troops would return to their bases, we continue to monitor the situation closely and we have been clear that Russia’s threatening behaviour is completely unacceptable. In the event of further escalations, we will explore counter-measures with our allies.
Our vocal support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is backed by our long-standing defence engagement. Our military support is delivered primarily through Operation ORBITAL, the UK’s training mission to Ukraine. Since launching that in 2015, we have trained over 20,000 members of the Ukrainian armed forces. In 2019, we expanded Operation ORBITAL to include naval co-operation and last year, we launched the UK co-ordinated multinational maritime training initiative. As the hon. Gentleman will know, last summer HMS Dragon visited the Black sea, including the ports of Odessa in Ukraine, Batumi in Georgia and Constanţa in Romania. Her deployment reflected our support for regional allies and partners and our commitment to regional security and maintaining freedom of navigation, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred.
On that point, we are closely monitoring reports of the Russian decision to close parts of the Black sea surrounding illegally annexed Crimea.
This is the latest example of destabilising activity in the region, following the build-up on the border. We have called on Russia not to hinder passage through the Kerch Strait. That is something we are monitoring closely. We will, of course, take the appropriate action should our calls not be heeded. HMS Dragon’s deployment reflects our support for all the regional allies and partners in that region.
We are also one of the biggest supporters of the OSCE’s special monitoring mission to Ukraine. That plays a crucial role in providing impartial reporting to the international community on the conflict in eastern Ukraine. We are one of the largest contributors to the mission both financially and in terms of personnel, and the Government reaffirmed our commitment to it in our recent integrated review. We also remain supportive of Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations, in line with the 2008 Bucharest summit declaration. Ukraine achieved enhanced opportunities partner status nine months ago, the highest level of partnership with NATO available. That offers a framework for engagement as Ukraine moves forward with the reforms that are a precondition of its membership pathway.
Hostile Russian activity is not the only challenge we are helping Ukraine face. As the hon. Gentleman referred to on a number of occasions in his speech, we are a friend of Ukraine. That is reflected by our support since the beginning of the pandemic. We have provided legislative assistance to the Ukrainian Ministry of Health. We have supported Ukraine to maximise the effectiveness of Government public communications on covid-19. We are also working with civil society organisations to enhance oversight of covid-19 procurement. We have tailored our programme of support this year in defence, economic development and governance reforms to support the recovery from covid-19. Furthermore, Ukraine stands to benefit from the £548 million that the UK Government have committed to the COVAX vaccine initiative, which will contribute to the supply of at least 1.3 billion doses of covid vaccines this year for up to 92 low and middle-income countries. We are also funding the World Health Organisation to train mobile teams to administer vaccines in Ukraine.
Covid-19 and Russian aggression aside, there is another battle going on in Ukraine: the fight against corruption and internal vested interests that seek to hinder vital reforms, which is why we continue to support Ukraine’s reform programme, a commitment the Prime Minister reiterated to President Zelensky during his October visit. I am proud that under our leadership of the G7 ambassadors’ support group in Kiev, we have co-ordinated international advocacy for fighting corruption, strengthening the judiciary’s independence and supporting Ukraine in its implementation of an ambitious reform programme.
Our close bilateral relationship with Ukraine also means that we can be a critical friend, including on matters of internal reform. For example, we have expressed our serious concerns about corporate governance in Ukraine following the recent dismissal of the CEO from the state-owned energy company Naftogaz. We have reiterated to the Ukraine Government that it is crucial to foreign investor confidence that corporate governance of state-owned enterprises is transparent,  free from political interference and consistent with international standards. We are also using our programme funding to support economic and governance reforms that fight corruption, improve the business environment, and increase Government accountability. Last year alone, we allocated £14 million in official development assistance and other funding in support of programmes that support prosperity, resilience and stability in Ukraine.
I will try to answer a couple of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He asked whether Russia Today should be able to broadcast in the UK, and what the latest update is. We all have our doubts about the objectivity of the reporting of RT through its UK television channel, which remains a tool for propaganda for the Russian state. As he will appreciate, broadcasting regulation is a matter for the independent regulator.

Stewart McDonald: I am grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention. It is important to be accurate about what I said: I was not looking for RT to get sanctioned, closed down, or anything like that. Any suggestion of closing down a TV channel makes me instinctively wince. What I did ask was whether we can have a targeted sanction against the individual who is the global head of RT, Margarita Simonyan. I am in no doubt about RT’s objectivity: it does not have any  at all.

Nigel Adams: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I apologise if I strayed down a different path to the one that he raised. However, he will understand that it is not appropriate to speculate about individuals who may or may not be sanctioned. We continue to consider designations under the global human rights sanctions regulations; speculating about individuals, as I know the hon. Gentleman knows, could very well reduce the impact of designations should they occur.
He mentioned the Crimean Tatars, and rightly so. We are very concerned about the ongoing human rights abuses experienced by ethnic and religious minorities in  Crimea. The Crimean Tatars face regular harassment and risk arrest, detention, and threats to seize their property. The UK has contributed £700,000 to the UN human rights monitoring mission that monitors and documents human rights abuses on the peninsula, and provides human rights expertise to promote the right to a fair trial for political prisoners in Crimea. We are also working with Ukraine on the development of the international Crimean platform, to ensure Russia continues to be held to account for the illegal annexation of Crimea and its actions in the region.
I think that the hon. Gentleman also mentioned the carrier strike group in his remarks. We will visit more than one fifth of the world’s nations with the carrier strike group when it sails, and it will also participate in NATO exercises such as Exercise Steadfast Defender and provide support to NATO’s Operation Sea Guardian and security operations in the Black sea. He also referred to Nord Stream 2. We have continuing and significant concerns about Nord Stream 2 and its implications for European energy security and, of course, for the interests of Ukraine. We must work together to reduce reliance on any single supplier, and we call on the EU to ensure that Nord Stream 2 fully complies with the EU gas directive to help avoid monopolistic practices by Gazprom. We would also like significant volumes of gas transit through Ukraine to be preserved, recognising the importance of tariff revenue for the Ukrainian economy.
Ultimately, our work with the people and Government of Ukraine, as an honest friend and an ally, is to support the democratic choices and rights of the Ukrainian people. It is in support of individuals and institutions, working for a Ukraine that is free from external interference and that works in the interests of all its people, rather than those of a few corrupt and self-interested individuals. It is important work, which I believe we should all support.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.